TY - CPAPER T1 - miRDisc: A novel microRNA discovery pipeline for organisms without a complete reference genome sequence T2 - 9th Annual Conference of the MidSouth Computational Biology and Bioinformatics Society (MCBIOS 2012) AN - 1326135395; 6206093 JF - 9th Annual Conference of the MidSouth Computational Biology and Bioinformatics Society (MCBIOS 2012) AU - Wang, Nan AU - Yang, Lijuan AU - Peng, Yan AU - Barker, Natalie AU - Zhang, Chaoyang AU - Perkins, Edward AU - Gong, Ping Y1 - 2012/02/17/ PY - 2012 DA - 2012 Feb 17 KW - Pipelines KW - Genomes KW - miRNA KW - Nucleotide sequence UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1326135395?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=9th+Annual+Conference+of+the+MidSouth+Computational+Biology+and+Bioinformatics+Society+%28MCBIOS+2012%29&rft.atitle=miRDisc%3A+A+novel+microRNA+discovery+pipeline+for+organisms+without+a+complete+reference+genome+sequence&rft.au=Wang%2C+Nan%3BYang%2C+Lijuan%3BPeng%2C+Yan%3BBarker%2C+Natalie%3BZhang%2C+Chaoyang%3BPerkins%2C+Edward%3BGong%2C+Ping&rft.aulast=Wang&rft.aufirst=Nan&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=9th+Annual+Conference+of+the+MidSouth+Computational+Biology+and+Bioinformatics+Society+%28MCBIOS+2012%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://mcbios.org/sites/default/files/MCBIOS_2012_Conference_Program_Final_Website_0.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-03-31 N1 - Last updated - 2013-04-12 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Regression models for predicting tissue residue of two explosive compounds using earthworm microarray data T2 - 9th Annual Conference of the MidSouth Computational Biology and Bioinformatics Society (MCBIOS 2012) AN - 1326133994; 6206105 JF - 9th Annual Conference of the MidSouth Computational Biology and Bioinformatics Society (MCBIOS 2012) AU - Gong, Ping AU - Nan, Xiaofei AU - Barker, Natalie AU - Chen, Yixin AU - Wilkins, Dawn AU - Perkins, Edward Y1 - 2012/02/17/ PY - 2012 DA - 2012 Feb 17 KW - Earthworms KW - Residues KW - Explosives KW - Data processing KW - Regression analysis KW - Models UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1326133994?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=9th+Annual+Conference+of+the+MidSouth+Computational+Biology+and+Bioinformatics+Society+%28MCBIOS+2012%29&rft.atitle=Regression+models+for+predicting+tissue+residue+of+two+explosive+compounds+using+earthworm+microarray+data&rft.au=Gong%2C+Ping%3BNan%2C+Xiaofei%3BBarker%2C+Natalie%3BChen%2C+Yixin%3BWilkins%2C+Dawn%3BPerkins%2C+Edward&rft.aulast=Gong&rft.aufirst=Ping&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=9th+Annual+Conference+of+the+MidSouth+Computational+Biology+and+Bioinformatics+Society+%28MCBIOS+2012%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://mcbios.org/sites/default/files/MCBIOS_2012_Conference_Program_Final_Website_0.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-03-31 N1 - Last updated - 2013-04-12 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 64 IMPROVEMENTS FROM EAST OF COLUMBIA TO US 264, TYRRELL AND DARE COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 15 of 15] T2 - US 64 IMPROVEMENTS FROM EAST OF COLUMBIA TO US 264, TYRRELL AND DARE COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 1020046528; 15233-5_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 27.3-mile segment of US Highway 64, including the replacement of the Lindsey C. Warren Bridge over the Alligator River, in Tyrrell and Dare counties, North Carolina is proposed. The project study area begins east of the Town of Columbia, continues across the northern part of Tyrrell County, across the Alligator River, and into the Dare County mainland. The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway bisects the area along the Alligator River. Development along the corridor consists primarily of a neighborhood just east of Columbia, a small community at the eastern intersection of US 64 and Old US 64 in Tyrrell County, a marina/convenience store complex on the Alligator River, and the community of East Lake in Dare County. The project would start on the east side of Columbia improving the roadway from a two-lane facility to a four-lane divided highway and end at the intersection of US 264 and US 64 just west of Manns Harbor. The facility would be constructed as an expressway with partial control of access mainly with south or north side widening except for some proposed new location alternatives starting west of the Alligator River and continuing to the east side of the East Lake community. In addition to a No Build Alternative, this draft EIS considers numerous alternatives within the five major study sections, including three possible bridge replacement corridors. Every project alternative involves a four-lane, median-divided highway. Within Tyrrell County, designs for both a 23-foot-wide raised median and 46-foot-wide depressed median are under evaluation. Within Dare County, only a 23-foot-wide median is under evaluation. The differences in the alternatives relate to the location and length of widened highway or highway on new location, the length of the associated bridge, and the type and extent of impacts to the natural and/or human environments. The replacement bridge would be a single 78-foot-wide structure carrying a four-lane highway with two 12-foot-wide travel lanes in each direction, separated by a two-foot-wide concrete median barrier. The design would accommodate 10-foot-wide outside shoulders and four-foot-wide inside shoulders. The posted speed limit along the improved roadway and new bridge would remain at the current 55 miles per hour. Total project cost is estimated in the range of $355.7 million to $399.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would complete intrastate improvements to US 64 between Raleigh and the Outer Banks, reduce hurricane evacuation time, and maintain a bridge across the Alligator River that meets the needs of highway users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: A north or south bridge corridor, plus widening of the existing highway, would cause substantial relocation of existing homes in the East Lake community. Conversely, a bypass corridor, north or south of East Lake, would create increased impacts to wetlands and the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. Right-of-way requirements would impact up to 10 acres of farmland, 267 acres of wetlands, 125 acres of protected species habitat, and 367 acres of essential fish habitat. The construction of some alternatives would require relocation of adjacent canals. Relocations of nine to 24 residences, one or two businesses, and up to two churches and cemeteries would result in significant community impacts. North-side widening in Tyrrell County would likely cause disproportionately high and adverse effects to the minority population in the Alligator community. Three historic sites (Lindsey C. Warren Bridge, East Lake Methodist Church and Cemetery, East Lake Fire Tower) would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), 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: 120035, 756 pages and maps, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Cultural Resources KW - Demolition KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alligator River KW - Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge KW - Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046528?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+64+IMPROVEMENTS+FROM+EAST+OF+COLUMBIA+TO+US+264%2C+TYRRELL+AND+DARE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=US+64+IMPROVEMENTS+FROM+EAST+OF+COLUMBIA+TO+US+264%2C+TYRRELL+AND+DARE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 64 IMPROVEMENTS FROM EAST OF COLUMBIA TO US 264, TYRRELL AND DARE COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 9 of 15] T2 - US 64 IMPROVEMENTS FROM EAST OF COLUMBIA TO US 264, TYRRELL AND DARE COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 1020046520; 15233-5_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 27.3-mile segment of US Highway 64, including the replacement of the Lindsey C. Warren Bridge over the Alligator River, in Tyrrell and Dare counties, North Carolina is proposed. The project study area begins east of the Town of Columbia, continues across the northern part of Tyrrell County, across the Alligator River, and into the Dare County mainland. The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway bisects the area along the Alligator River. Development along the corridor consists primarily of a neighborhood just east of Columbia, a small community at the eastern intersection of US 64 and Old US 64 in Tyrrell County, a marina/convenience store complex on the Alligator River, and the community of East Lake in Dare County. The project would start on the east side of Columbia improving the roadway from a two-lane facility to a four-lane divided highway and end at the intersection of US 264 and US 64 just west of Manns Harbor. The facility would be constructed as an expressway with partial control of access mainly with south or north side widening except for some proposed new location alternatives starting west of the Alligator River and continuing to the east side of the East Lake community. In addition to a No Build Alternative, this draft EIS considers numerous alternatives within the five major study sections, including three possible bridge replacement corridors. Every project alternative involves a four-lane, median-divided highway. Within Tyrrell County, designs for both a 23-foot-wide raised median and 46-foot-wide depressed median are under evaluation. Within Dare County, only a 23-foot-wide median is under evaluation. The differences in the alternatives relate to the location and length of widened highway or highway on new location, the length of the associated bridge, and the type and extent of impacts to the natural and/or human environments. The replacement bridge would be a single 78-foot-wide structure carrying a four-lane highway with two 12-foot-wide travel lanes in each direction, separated by a two-foot-wide concrete median barrier. The design would accommodate 10-foot-wide outside shoulders and four-foot-wide inside shoulders. The posted speed limit along the improved roadway and new bridge would remain at the current 55 miles per hour. Total project cost is estimated in the range of $355.7 million to $399.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would complete intrastate improvements to US 64 between Raleigh and the Outer Banks, reduce hurricane evacuation time, and maintain a bridge across the Alligator River that meets the needs of highway users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: A north or south bridge corridor, plus widening of the existing highway, would cause substantial relocation of existing homes in the East Lake community. Conversely, a bypass corridor, north or south of East Lake, would create increased impacts to wetlands and the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. Right-of-way requirements would impact up to 10 acres of farmland, 267 acres of wetlands, 125 acres of protected species habitat, and 367 acres of essential fish habitat. The construction of some alternatives would require relocation of adjacent canals. Relocations of nine to 24 residences, one or two businesses, and up to two churches and cemeteries would result in significant community impacts. North-side widening in Tyrrell County would likely cause disproportionately high and adverse effects to the minority population in the Alligator community. Three historic sites (Lindsey C. Warren Bridge, East Lake Methodist Church and Cemetery, East Lake Fire Tower) would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), 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: 120035, 756 pages and maps, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Cultural Resources KW - Demolition KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alligator River KW - Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge KW - Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046520?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+64+IMPROVEMENTS+FROM+EAST+OF+COLUMBIA+TO+US+264%2C+TYRRELL+AND+DARE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=US+64+IMPROVEMENTS+FROM+EAST+OF+COLUMBIA+TO+US+264%2C+TYRRELL+AND+DARE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 64 IMPROVEMENTS FROM EAST OF COLUMBIA TO US 264, TYRRELL AND DARE COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 8 of 15] T2 - US 64 IMPROVEMENTS FROM EAST OF COLUMBIA TO US 264, TYRRELL AND DARE COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 1020046518; 15233-5_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 27.3-mile segment of US Highway 64, including the replacement of the Lindsey C. Warren Bridge over the Alligator River, in Tyrrell and Dare counties, North Carolina is proposed. The project study area begins east of the Town of Columbia, continues across the northern part of Tyrrell County, across the Alligator River, and into the Dare County mainland. The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway bisects the area along the Alligator River. Development along the corridor consists primarily of a neighborhood just east of Columbia, a small community at the eastern intersection of US 64 and Old US 64 in Tyrrell County, a marina/convenience store complex on the Alligator River, and the community of East Lake in Dare County. The project would start on the east side of Columbia improving the roadway from a two-lane facility to a four-lane divided highway and end at the intersection of US 264 and US 64 just west of Manns Harbor. The facility would be constructed as an expressway with partial control of access mainly with south or north side widening except for some proposed new location alternatives starting west of the Alligator River and continuing to the east side of the East Lake community. In addition to a No Build Alternative, this draft EIS considers numerous alternatives within the five major study sections, including three possible bridge replacement corridors. Every project alternative involves a four-lane, median-divided highway. Within Tyrrell County, designs for both a 23-foot-wide raised median and 46-foot-wide depressed median are under evaluation. Within Dare County, only a 23-foot-wide median is under evaluation. The differences in the alternatives relate to the location and length of widened highway or highway on new location, the length of the associated bridge, and the type and extent of impacts to the natural and/or human environments. The replacement bridge would be a single 78-foot-wide structure carrying a four-lane highway with two 12-foot-wide travel lanes in each direction, separated by a two-foot-wide concrete median barrier. The design would accommodate 10-foot-wide outside shoulders and four-foot-wide inside shoulders. The posted speed limit along the improved roadway and new bridge would remain at the current 55 miles per hour. Total project cost is estimated in the range of $355.7 million to $399.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would complete intrastate improvements to US 64 between Raleigh and the Outer Banks, reduce hurricane evacuation time, and maintain a bridge across the Alligator River that meets the needs of highway users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: A north or south bridge corridor, plus widening of the existing highway, would cause substantial relocation of existing homes in the East Lake community. Conversely, a bypass corridor, north or south of East Lake, would create increased impacts to wetlands and the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. Right-of-way requirements would impact up to 10 acres of farmland, 267 acres of wetlands, 125 acres of protected species habitat, and 367 acres of essential fish habitat. The construction of some alternatives would require relocation of adjacent canals. Relocations of nine to 24 residences, one or two businesses, and up to two churches and cemeteries would result in significant community impacts. North-side widening in Tyrrell County would likely cause disproportionately high and adverse effects to the minority population in the Alligator community. Three historic sites (Lindsey C. Warren Bridge, East Lake Methodist Church and Cemetery, East Lake Fire Tower) would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), 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: 120035, 756 pages and maps, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Cultural Resources KW - Demolition KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alligator River KW - Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge KW - Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046518?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+64+IMPROVEMENTS+FROM+EAST+OF+COLUMBIA+TO+US+264%2C+TYRRELL+AND+DARE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=US+64+IMPROVEMENTS+FROM+EAST+OF+COLUMBIA+TO+US+264%2C+TYRRELL+AND+DARE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 64 IMPROVEMENTS FROM EAST OF COLUMBIA TO US 264, TYRRELL AND DARE COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 1 of 15] T2 - US 64 IMPROVEMENTS FROM EAST OF COLUMBIA TO US 264, TYRRELL AND DARE COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 1020046485; 15233-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 27.3-mile segment of US Highway 64, including the replacement of the Lindsey C. Warren Bridge over the Alligator River, in Tyrrell and Dare counties, North Carolina is proposed. The project study area begins east of the Town of Columbia, continues across the northern part of Tyrrell County, across the Alligator River, and into the Dare County mainland. The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway bisects the area along the Alligator River. Development along the corridor consists primarily of a neighborhood just east of Columbia, a small community at the eastern intersection of US 64 and Old US 64 in Tyrrell County, a marina/convenience store complex on the Alligator River, and the community of East Lake in Dare County. The project would start on the east side of Columbia improving the roadway from a two-lane facility to a four-lane divided highway and end at the intersection of US 264 and US 64 just west of Manns Harbor. The facility would be constructed as an expressway with partial control of access mainly with south or north side widening except for some proposed new location alternatives starting west of the Alligator River and continuing to the east side of the East Lake community. In addition to a No Build Alternative, this draft EIS considers numerous alternatives within the five major study sections, including three possible bridge replacement corridors. Every project alternative involves a four-lane, median-divided highway. Within Tyrrell County, designs for both a 23-foot-wide raised median and 46-foot-wide depressed median are under evaluation. Within Dare County, only a 23-foot-wide median is under evaluation. The differences in the alternatives relate to the location and length of widened highway or highway on new location, the length of the associated bridge, and the type and extent of impacts to the natural and/or human environments. The replacement bridge would be a single 78-foot-wide structure carrying a four-lane highway with two 12-foot-wide travel lanes in each direction, separated by a two-foot-wide concrete median barrier. The design would accommodate 10-foot-wide outside shoulders and four-foot-wide inside shoulders. The posted speed limit along the improved roadway and new bridge would remain at the current 55 miles per hour. Total project cost is estimated in the range of $355.7 million to $399.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would complete intrastate improvements to US 64 between Raleigh and the Outer Banks, reduce hurricane evacuation time, and maintain a bridge across the Alligator River that meets the needs of highway users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: A north or south bridge corridor, plus widening of the existing highway, would cause substantial relocation of existing homes in the East Lake community. Conversely, a bypass corridor, north or south of East Lake, would create increased impacts to wetlands and the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. Right-of-way requirements would impact up to 10 acres of farmland, 267 acres of wetlands, 125 acres of protected species habitat, and 367 acres of essential fish habitat. The construction of some alternatives would require relocation of adjacent canals. Relocations of nine to 24 residences, one or two businesses, and up to two churches and cemeteries would result in significant community impacts. North-side widening in Tyrrell County would likely cause disproportionately high and adverse effects to the minority population in the Alligator community. Three historic sites (Lindsey C. Warren Bridge, East Lake Methodist Church and Cemetery, East Lake Fire Tower) would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), 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: 120035, 756 pages and maps, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Cultural Resources KW - Demolition KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alligator River KW - Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge KW - Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046485?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+64+IMPROVEMENTS+FROM+EAST+OF+COLUMBIA+TO+US+264%2C+TYRRELL+AND+DARE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=US+64+IMPROVEMENTS+FROM+EAST+OF+COLUMBIA+TO+US+264%2C+TYRRELL+AND+DARE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 64 IMPROVEMENTS FROM EAST OF COLUMBIA TO US 264, TYRRELL AND DARE COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 1009503323; 15233 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 27.3-mile segment of US Highway 64, including the replacement of the Lindsey C. Warren Bridge over the Alligator River, in Tyrrell and Dare counties, North Carolina is proposed. The project study area begins east of the Town of Columbia, continues across the northern part of Tyrrell County, across the Alligator River, and into the Dare County mainland. The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway bisects the area along the Alligator River. Development along the corridor consists primarily of a neighborhood just east of Columbia, a small community at the eastern intersection of US 64 and Old US 64 in Tyrrell County, a marina/convenience store complex on the Alligator River, and the community of East Lake in Dare County. The project would start on the east side of Columbia improving the roadway from a two-lane facility to a four-lane divided highway and end at the intersection of US 264 and US 64 just west of Manns Harbor. The facility would be constructed as an expressway with partial control of access mainly with south or north side widening except for some proposed new location alternatives starting west of the Alligator River and continuing to the east side of the East Lake community. In addition to a No Build Alternative, this draft EIS considers numerous alternatives within the five major study sections, including three possible bridge replacement corridors. Every project alternative involves a four-lane, median-divided highway. Within Tyrrell County, designs for both a 23-foot-wide raised median and 46-foot-wide depressed median are under evaluation. Within Dare County, only a 23-foot-wide median is under evaluation. The differences in the alternatives relate to the location and length of widened highway or highway on new location, the length of the associated bridge, and the type and extent of impacts to the natural and/or human environments. The replacement bridge would be a single 78-foot-wide structure carrying a four-lane highway with two 12-foot-wide travel lanes in each direction, separated by a two-foot-wide concrete median barrier. The design would accommodate 10-foot-wide outside shoulders and four-foot-wide inside shoulders. The posted speed limit along the improved roadway and new bridge would remain at the current 55 miles per hour. Total project cost is estimated in the range of $355.7 million to $399.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would complete intrastate improvements to US 64 between Raleigh and the Outer Banks, reduce hurricane evacuation time, and maintain a bridge across the Alligator River that meets the needs of highway users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: A north or south bridge corridor, plus widening of the existing highway, would cause substantial relocation of existing homes in the East Lake community. Conversely, a bypass corridor, north or south of East Lake, would create increased impacts to wetlands and the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. Right-of-way requirements would impact up to 10 acres of farmland, 267 acres of wetlands, 125 acres of protected species habitat, and 367 acres of essential fish habitat. The construction of some alternatives would require relocation of adjacent canals. Relocations of nine to 24 residences, one or two businesses, and up to two churches and cemeteries would result in significant community impacts. North-side widening in Tyrrell County would likely cause disproportionately high and adverse effects to the minority population in the Alligator community. Three historic sites (Lindsey C. Warren Bridge, East Lake Methodist Church and Cemetery, East Lake Fire Tower) would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), 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: 120035, 756 pages and maps, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Cultural Resources KW - Demolition KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alligator River KW - Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge KW - Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1009503323?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+64+IMPROVEMENTS+FROM+EAST+OF+COLUMBIA+TO+US+264%2C+TYRRELL+AND+DARE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=US+64+IMPROVEMENTS+FROM+EAST+OF+COLUMBIA+TO+US+264%2C+TYRRELL+AND+DARE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-26 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 30] T2 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1012744005; 15226-8_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a regional interconnected system of wastewater and treatment facilities known as the Joint Outfall System (JOS) in Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Seventeen of the 23 independent special districts that comprise the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) participate in a cooperative agreement to operate and maintain the JOS which serves five million people in 73 cities and unincorporated county areas, and spans 660 square miles. The JOS boundaries extend from the San Gabriel Mountain foothills to the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro Bay, and from San Bernardino and Orange Counties to the cities of Glendale and Los Angeles and to Santa Monica Bay. Wastewater from homes and businesses flows into local sewers, and through a 1,230-mile network of larger trunk sewers to seven wastewater treatment plants with a combined permitted capacity of 593 million gallons per day (MGD). Approximately one-third of the wastewater in the JOS system is treated at six water reclamation plants (WRPs), which produce high-quality recycled water that is beneficially reused or discharged to rivers and streams. The remaining two-thirds, which includes saltier industrial wastewater, is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson, California. The solids removed at the WRPs during the treatment process are returned to the trunk sewers to be processed at the JWPCP. From the JWPCP, the treated water is transported by two six-mile-long tunnels to Royal Palms Beach where the effluent exits four ocean outfalls which consist of seafloor pipelines that extend up to 1.5 miles offshore and reach a depth of 200 feet. The Sanitation Districts prepared the Clearwater Program Master Facilities Plan (MFP) to meet the wastewater management needs of the JOS through the year 2050. New facilities and upgrades that are required to accommodate projected future conditions within the JOS service area, including aging infrastructure, anticipated growth within the system, emerging demands for recycled water, and potential new regulatory requirements, were evaluated in the MFP. Program and project level improvements were combined into six alternatives that are assessed in this draft EIS. Program-wide recommendations include: the expansion of the San Jose Creek WRP from its current capacity of 100 MGD to 125 MGD; process optimization upgrades at the San Jose Creek, Pomona, Los Coyotes, and Long Beach WRPs; and increased capacity along approximately 33 miles of trunk sewers. To address immediate need, Alternatives 1 through 4 propose a new or a modified ocean discharge system. Under Alternative 5 (No Project Alternative), there would be neither federal nor local approval of the project or program and the Sanitation Districts would continue to expand, upgrade, and operate the JOS in accordance with the 2010 JOS MFP (prepared in 1995). Alternative 6 (No-Federal-Action Alternative) consists of the activities that the Sanitation Districts would perform without the issuance of permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under Alternative 4, which is the recommended alternative, project elements for the ocean discharge system would include: a working shaft site at the JWPCP; an onshore tunnel between the JWPCP and the existing ocean outfall manifold structure at Royal Palms Beach near White Point; an exit shaft site at Royal Palms Beach; and the rehabilitation of the existing ocean outfalls. The total capital cost for the modified ocean discharge system under the recommended alternative is estimated at $550 million in 2011 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program implementation would ensure continued regulatory compliance and adequate JOS wastewater system capacity and reliability through the year 2050. Management systems would support increased beneficial use of recycled water and biosolids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Without the project, the potential for emergency discharges and/or sewer overflows into various water courses would increase. Project construction would result in significant impacts on aesthetic resources, peak day air quality, and paleontological resources. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations due to work at the JWPCP East shaft site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120028, Executive Summary--53 pages, Draft EIS--1,831 pages, Appendices-1,566 pages, Master Facilities Plan--317 pages, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Public Health KW - Recycling KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Sewers KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012744005?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 30] T2 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1012744004; 15226-8_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a regional interconnected system of wastewater and treatment facilities known as the Joint Outfall System (JOS) in Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Seventeen of the 23 independent special districts that comprise the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) participate in a cooperative agreement to operate and maintain the JOS which serves five million people in 73 cities and unincorporated county areas, and spans 660 square miles. The JOS boundaries extend from the San Gabriel Mountain foothills to the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro Bay, and from San Bernardino and Orange Counties to the cities of Glendale and Los Angeles and to Santa Monica Bay. Wastewater from homes and businesses flows into local sewers, and through a 1,230-mile network of larger trunk sewers to seven wastewater treatment plants with a combined permitted capacity of 593 million gallons per day (MGD). Approximately one-third of the wastewater in the JOS system is treated at six water reclamation plants (WRPs), which produce high-quality recycled water that is beneficially reused or discharged to rivers and streams. The remaining two-thirds, which includes saltier industrial wastewater, is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson, California. The solids removed at the WRPs during the treatment process are returned to the trunk sewers to be processed at the JWPCP. From the JWPCP, the treated water is transported by two six-mile-long tunnels to Royal Palms Beach where the effluent exits four ocean outfalls which consist of seafloor pipelines that extend up to 1.5 miles offshore and reach a depth of 200 feet. The Sanitation Districts prepared the Clearwater Program Master Facilities Plan (MFP) to meet the wastewater management needs of the JOS through the year 2050. New facilities and upgrades that are required to accommodate projected future conditions within the JOS service area, including aging infrastructure, anticipated growth within the system, emerging demands for recycled water, and potential new regulatory requirements, were evaluated in the MFP. Program and project level improvements were combined into six alternatives that are assessed in this draft EIS. Program-wide recommendations include: the expansion of the San Jose Creek WRP from its current capacity of 100 MGD to 125 MGD; process optimization upgrades at the San Jose Creek, Pomona, Los Coyotes, and Long Beach WRPs; and increased capacity along approximately 33 miles of trunk sewers. To address immediate need, Alternatives 1 through 4 propose a new or a modified ocean discharge system. Under Alternative 5 (No Project Alternative), there would be neither federal nor local approval of the project or program and the Sanitation Districts would continue to expand, upgrade, and operate the JOS in accordance with the 2010 JOS MFP (prepared in 1995). Alternative 6 (No-Federal-Action Alternative) consists of the activities that the Sanitation Districts would perform without the issuance of permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under Alternative 4, which is the recommended alternative, project elements for the ocean discharge system would include: a working shaft site at the JWPCP; an onshore tunnel between the JWPCP and the existing ocean outfall manifold structure at Royal Palms Beach near White Point; an exit shaft site at Royal Palms Beach; and the rehabilitation of the existing ocean outfalls. The total capital cost for the modified ocean discharge system under the recommended alternative is estimated at $550 million in 2011 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program implementation would ensure continued regulatory compliance and adequate JOS wastewater system capacity and reliability through the year 2050. Management systems would support increased beneficial use of recycled water and biosolids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Without the project, the potential for emergency discharges and/or sewer overflows into various water courses would increase. Project construction would result in significant impacts on aesthetic resources, peak day air quality, and paleontological resources. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations due to work at the JWPCP East shaft site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120028, Executive Summary--53 pages, Draft EIS--1,831 pages, Appendices-1,566 pages, Master Facilities Plan--317 pages, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Public Health KW - Recycling KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Sewers KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012744004?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 30] T2 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1012744002; 15226-8_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a regional interconnected system of wastewater and treatment facilities known as the Joint Outfall System (JOS) in Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Seventeen of the 23 independent special districts that comprise the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) participate in a cooperative agreement to operate and maintain the JOS which serves five million people in 73 cities and unincorporated county areas, and spans 660 square miles. The JOS boundaries extend from the San Gabriel Mountain foothills to the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro Bay, and from San Bernardino and Orange Counties to the cities of Glendale and Los Angeles and to Santa Monica Bay. Wastewater from homes and businesses flows into local sewers, and through a 1,230-mile network of larger trunk sewers to seven wastewater treatment plants with a combined permitted capacity of 593 million gallons per day (MGD). Approximately one-third of the wastewater in the JOS system is treated at six water reclamation plants (WRPs), which produce high-quality recycled water that is beneficially reused or discharged to rivers and streams. The remaining two-thirds, which includes saltier industrial wastewater, is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson, California. The solids removed at the WRPs during the treatment process are returned to the trunk sewers to be processed at the JWPCP. From the JWPCP, the treated water is transported by two six-mile-long tunnels to Royal Palms Beach where the effluent exits four ocean outfalls which consist of seafloor pipelines that extend up to 1.5 miles offshore and reach a depth of 200 feet. The Sanitation Districts prepared the Clearwater Program Master Facilities Plan (MFP) to meet the wastewater management needs of the JOS through the year 2050. New facilities and upgrades that are required to accommodate projected future conditions within the JOS service area, including aging infrastructure, anticipated growth within the system, emerging demands for recycled water, and potential new regulatory requirements, were evaluated in the MFP. Program and project level improvements were combined into six alternatives that are assessed in this draft EIS. Program-wide recommendations include: the expansion of the San Jose Creek WRP from its current capacity of 100 MGD to 125 MGD; process optimization upgrades at the San Jose Creek, Pomona, Los Coyotes, and Long Beach WRPs; and increased capacity along approximately 33 miles of trunk sewers. To address immediate need, Alternatives 1 through 4 propose a new or a modified ocean discharge system. Under Alternative 5 (No Project Alternative), there would be neither federal nor local approval of the project or program and the Sanitation Districts would continue to expand, upgrade, and operate the JOS in accordance with the 2010 JOS MFP (prepared in 1995). Alternative 6 (No-Federal-Action Alternative) consists of the activities that the Sanitation Districts would perform without the issuance of permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under Alternative 4, which is the recommended alternative, project elements for the ocean discharge system would include: a working shaft site at the JWPCP; an onshore tunnel between the JWPCP and the existing ocean outfall manifold structure at Royal Palms Beach near White Point; an exit shaft site at Royal Palms Beach; and the rehabilitation of the existing ocean outfalls. The total capital cost for the modified ocean discharge system under the recommended alternative is estimated at $550 million in 2011 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program implementation would ensure continued regulatory compliance and adequate JOS wastewater system capacity and reliability through the year 2050. Management systems would support increased beneficial use of recycled water and biosolids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Without the project, the potential for emergency discharges and/or sewer overflows into various water courses would increase. Project construction would result in significant impacts on aesthetic resources, peak day air quality, and paleontological resources. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations due to work at the JWPCP East shaft site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120028, Executive Summary--53 pages, Draft EIS--1,831 pages, Appendices-1,566 pages, Master Facilities Plan--317 pages, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Public Health KW - Recycling KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Sewers KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012744002?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 30] T2 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1012744001; 15226-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a regional interconnected system of wastewater and treatment facilities known as the Joint Outfall System (JOS) in Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Seventeen of the 23 independent special districts that comprise the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) participate in a cooperative agreement to operate and maintain the JOS which serves five million people in 73 cities and unincorporated county areas, and spans 660 square miles. The JOS boundaries extend from the San Gabriel Mountain foothills to the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro Bay, and from San Bernardino and Orange Counties to the cities of Glendale and Los Angeles and to Santa Monica Bay. Wastewater from homes and businesses flows into local sewers, and through a 1,230-mile network of larger trunk sewers to seven wastewater treatment plants with a combined permitted capacity of 593 million gallons per day (MGD). Approximately one-third of the wastewater in the JOS system is treated at six water reclamation plants (WRPs), which produce high-quality recycled water that is beneficially reused or discharged to rivers and streams. The remaining two-thirds, which includes saltier industrial wastewater, is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson, California. The solids removed at the WRPs during the treatment process are returned to the trunk sewers to be processed at the JWPCP. From the JWPCP, the treated water is transported by two six-mile-long tunnels to Royal Palms Beach where the effluent exits four ocean outfalls which consist of seafloor pipelines that extend up to 1.5 miles offshore and reach a depth of 200 feet. The Sanitation Districts prepared the Clearwater Program Master Facilities Plan (MFP) to meet the wastewater management needs of the JOS through the year 2050. New facilities and upgrades that are required to accommodate projected future conditions within the JOS service area, including aging infrastructure, anticipated growth within the system, emerging demands for recycled water, and potential new regulatory requirements, were evaluated in the MFP. Program and project level improvements were combined into six alternatives that are assessed in this draft EIS. Program-wide recommendations include: the expansion of the San Jose Creek WRP from its current capacity of 100 MGD to 125 MGD; process optimization upgrades at the San Jose Creek, Pomona, Los Coyotes, and Long Beach WRPs; and increased capacity along approximately 33 miles of trunk sewers. To address immediate need, Alternatives 1 through 4 propose a new or a modified ocean discharge system. Under Alternative 5 (No Project Alternative), there would be neither federal nor local approval of the project or program and the Sanitation Districts would continue to expand, upgrade, and operate the JOS in accordance with the 2010 JOS MFP (prepared in 1995). Alternative 6 (No-Federal-Action Alternative) consists of the activities that the Sanitation Districts would perform without the issuance of permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under Alternative 4, which is the recommended alternative, project elements for the ocean discharge system would include: a working shaft site at the JWPCP; an onshore tunnel between the JWPCP and the existing ocean outfall manifold structure at Royal Palms Beach near White Point; an exit shaft site at Royal Palms Beach; and the rehabilitation of the existing ocean outfalls. The total capital cost for the modified ocean discharge system under the recommended alternative is estimated at $550 million in 2011 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program implementation would ensure continued regulatory compliance and adequate JOS wastewater system capacity and reliability through the year 2050. Management systems would support increased beneficial use of recycled water and biosolids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Without the project, the potential for emergency discharges and/or sewer overflows into various water courses would increase. Project construction would result in significant impacts on aesthetic resources, peak day air quality, and paleontological resources. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations due to work at the JWPCP East shaft site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120028, Executive Summary--53 pages, Draft EIS--1,831 pages, Appendices-1,566 pages, Master Facilities Plan--317 pages, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Public Health KW - Recycling KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Sewers KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012744001?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HELENA BYPASS PROJECT, FROM COUNTY ROAD 52 IN HELENA TO STATE ROUTE 261 NEAR BEARDEN ROAD, SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA (PROJECT NO. ST-059-261-004). [Part 3 of 3] T2 - HELENA BYPASS PROJECT, FROM COUNTY ROAD 52 IN HELENA TO STATE ROUTE 261 NEAR BEARDEN ROAD, SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA (PROJECT NO. ST-059-261-004). AN - 1012744000; 15228-0_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a bypass of the City of Helena, Alabama, from County Road 52 (CR-52) to State Route 261 (SR-261), in northwestern Shelby County is proposed. Shelby County is home to many suburban communities of metropolitan Birmingham and is the fastest growing county in the state. The historic district of Old Towne Helena currently experiences congestion problems, especially during the morning and evening rush hours. There are two active railroads with at-grade crossings of SR-261 in the Old Towne area which regularly cause delays and congestion. The project would begin southwest of the downtown area on CR-52 approximately 6,600 feet west of the existing intersection of CR-52 and SR-261 and traverse northeasterly to a terminus with SR-261 near Bearden Road. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative I-A) would extend 3.7 miles, beginning as a four-lane divided section and proceeding along the northern portion of the study area for about two miles. At this point the alignment turns in an easterly direction and passes north of the Vulcan quarry site near SR-261. The alignment then turns northeasterly and transitions into a five-lane roadway for the final 1,500 feet to the terminus with SR-261. This alternative includes grade-separated crossings of the two railroads and a hydraulic structure which crosses Buck Creek. It also crosses two large power transmission lines operated by Alabama Power Company. A six-foot graded area would be provided to accommodate any future sidewalk along both sides of the proposed roadway. The total cost for the preferred alternative is estimated at $21.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide some relief for the existing congested road network and the proposed project would serve as the transportation backbone for Helena's ongoing development. Travel times would be improved for emergency services as well as for local and through traffic. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term traffic disruption, soil erosion and sedimentation, air quality reduction, noise increases, and utilities disruptions could occur during the estimated 30-month construction period. The preferred alternative would impact 2,280 linear feet of streams and 1.7 acres of wetlands. The bridge-crossing of Buck Creek would impact 2.6 acres of 100-year floodplain. Three receptor sites would be impacted by noise after construction is completed. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0507D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120030, 524 pages and maps, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012744000?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HELENA+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+FROM+COUNTY+ROAD+52+IN+HELENA+TO+STATE+ROUTE+261+NEAR+BEARDEN+ROAD%2C+SHELBY+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28PROJECT+NO.+ST-059-261-004%29.&rft.title=HELENA+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+FROM+COUNTY+ROAD+52+IN+HELENA+TO+STATE+ROUTE+261+NEAR+BEARDEN+ROAD%2C+SHELBY+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28PROJECT+NO.+ST-059-261-004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HELENA BYPASS PROJECT, FROM COUNTY ROAD 52 IN HELENA TO STATE ROUTE 261 NEAR BEARDEN ROAD, SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA (PROJECT NO. ST-059-261-004). [Part 2 of 3] T2 - HELENA BYPASS PROJECT, FROM COUNTY ROAD 52 IN HELENA TO STATE ROUTE 261 NEAR BEARDEN ROAD, SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA (PROJECT NO. ST-059-261-004). AN - 1012743999; 15228-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a bypass of the City of Helena, Alabama, from County Road 52 (CR-52) to State Route 261 (SR-261), in northwestern Shelby County is proposed. Shelby County is home to many suburban communities of metropolitan Birmingham and is the fastest growing county in the state. The historic district of Old Towne Helena currently experiences congestion problems, especially during the morning and evening rush hours. There are two active railroads with at-grade crossings of SR-261 in the Old Towne area which regularly cause delays and congestion. The project would begin southwest of the downtown area on CR-52 approximately 6,600 feet west of the existing intersection of CR-52 and SR-261 and traverse northeasterly to a terminus with SR-261 near Bearden Road. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative I-A) would extend 3.7 miles, beginning as a four-lane divided section and proceeding along the northern portion of the study area for about two miles. At this point the alignment turns in an easterly direction and passes north of the Vulcan quarry site near SR-261. The alignment then turns northeasterly and transitions into a five-lane roadway for the final 1,500 feet to the terminus with SR-261. This alternative includes grade-separated crossings of the two railroads and a hydraulic structure which crosses Buck Creek. It also crosses two large power transmission lines operated by Alabama Power Company. A six-foot graded area would be provided to accommodate any future sidewalk along both sides of the proposed roadway. The total cost for the preferred alternative is estimated at $21.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide some relief for the existing congested road network and the proposed project would serve as the transportation backbone for Helena's ongoing development. Travel times would be improved for emergency services as well as for local and through traffic. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term traffic disruption, soil erosion and sedimentation, air quality reduction, noise increases, and utilities disruptions could occur during the estimated 30-month construction period. The preferred alternative would impact 2,280 linear feet of streams and 1.7 acres of wetlands. The bridge-crossing of Buck Creek would impact 2.6 acres of 100-year floodplain. Three receptor sites would be impacted by noise after construction is completed. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0507D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120030, 524 pages and maps, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743999?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HELENA+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+FROM+COUNTY+ROAD+52+IN+HELENA+TO+STATE+ROUTE+261+NEAR+BEARDEN+ROAD%2C+SHELBY+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28PROJECT+NO.+ST-059-261-004%29.&rft.title=HELENA+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+FROM+COUNTY+ROAD+52+IN+HELENA+TO+STATE+ROUTE+261+NEAR+BEARDEN+ROAD%2C+SHELBY+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28PROJECT+NO.+ST-059-261-004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 30 of 30] T2 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1012743320; 15226-8_0030 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a regional interconnected system of wastewater and treatment facilities known as the Joint Outfall System (JOS) in Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Seventeen of the 23 independent special districts that comprise the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) participate in a cooperative agreement to operate and maintain the JOS which serves five million people in 73 cities and unincorporated county areas, and spans 660 square miles. The JOS boundaries extend from the San Gabriel Mountain foothills to the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro Bay, and from San Bernardino and Orange Counties to the cities of Glendale and Los Angeles and to Santa Monica Bay. Wastewater from homes and businesses flows into local sewers, and through a 1,230-mile network of larger trunk sewers to seven wastewater treatment plants with a combined permitted capacity of 593 million gallons per day (MGD). Approximately one-third of the wastewater in the JOS system is treated at six water reclamation plants (WRPs), which produce high-quality recycled water that is beneficially reused or discharged to rivers and streams. The remaining two-thirds, which includes saltier industrial wastewater, is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson, California. The solids removed at the WRPs during the treatment process are returned to the trunk sewers to be processed at the JWPCP. From the JWPCP, the treated water is transported by two six-mile-long tunnels to Royal Palms Beach where the effluent exits four ocean outfalls which consist of seafloor pipelines that extend up to 1.5 miles offshore and reach a depth of 200 feet. The Sanitation Districts prepared the Clearwater Program Master Facilities Plan (MFP) to meet the wastewater management needs of the JOS through the year 2050. New facilities and upgrades that are required to accommodate projected future conditions within the JOS service area, including aging infrastructure, anticipated growth within the system, emerging demands for recycled water, and potential new regulatory requirements, were evaluated in the MFP. Program and project level improvements were combined into six alternatives that are assessed in this draft EIS. Program-wide recommendations include: the expansion of the San Jose Creek WRP from its current capacity of 100 MGD to 125 MGD; process optimization upgrades at the San Jose Creek, Pomona, Los Coyotes, and Long Beach WRPs; and increased capacity along approximately 33 miles of trunk sewers. To address immediate need, Alternatives 1 through 4 propose a new or a modified ocean discharge system. Under Alternative 5 (No Project Alternative), there would be neither federal nor local approval of the project or program and the Sanitation Districts would continue to expand, upgrade, and operate the JOS in accordance with the 2010 JOS MFP (prepared in 1995). Alternative 6 (No-Federal-Action Alternative) consists of the activities that the Sanitation Districts would perform without the issuance of permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under Alternative 4, which is the recommended alternative, project elements for the ocean discharge system would include: a working shaft site at the JWPCP; an onshore tunnel between the JWPCP and the existing ocean outfall manifold structure at Royal Palms Beach near White Point; an exit shaft site at Royal Palms Beach; and the rehabilitation of the existing ocean outfalls. The total capital cost for the modified ocean discharge system under the recommended alternative is estimated at $550 million in 2011 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program implementation would ensure continued regulatory compliance and adequate JOS wastewater system capacity and reliability through the year 2050. Management systems would support increased beneficial use of recycled water and biosolids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Without the project, the potential for emergency discharges and/or sewer overflows into various water courses would increase. Project construction would result in significant impacts on aesthetic resources, peak day air quality, and paleontological resources. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations due to work at the JWPCP East shaft site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120028, Executive Summary--53 pages, Draft EIS--1,831 pages, Appendices-1,566 pages, Master Facilities Plan--317 pages, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 30 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Public Health KW - Recycling KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Sewers KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743320?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 29 of 30] T2 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1012743315; 15226-8_0029 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a regional interconnected system of wastewater and treatment facilities known as the Joint Outfall System (JOS) in Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Seventeen of the 23 independent special districts that comprise the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) participate in a cooperative agreement to operate and maintain the JOS which serves five million people in 73 cities and unincorporated county areas, and spans 660 square miles. The JOS boundaries extend from the San Gabriel Mountain foothills to the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro Bay, and from San Bernardino and Orange Counties to the cities of Glendale and Los Angeles and to Santa Monica Bay. Wastewater from homes and businesses flows into local sewers, and through a 1,230-mile network of larger trunk sewers to seven wastewater treatment plants with a combined permitted capacity of 593 million gallons per day (MGD). Approximately one-third of the wastewater in the JOS system is treated at six water reclamation plants (WRPs), which produce high-quality recycled water that is beneficially reused or discharged to rivers and streams. The remaining two-thirds, which includes saltier industrial wastewater, is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson, California. The solids removed at the WRPs during the treatment process are returned to the trunk sewers to be processed at the JWPCP. From the JWPCP, the treated water is transported by two six-mile-long tunnels to Royal Palms Beach where the effluent exits four ocean outfalls which consist of seafloor pipelines that extend up to 1.5 miles offshore and reach a depth of 200 feet. The Sanitation Districts prepared the Clearwater Program Master Facilities Plan (MFP) to meet the wastewater management needs of the JOS through the year 2050. New facilities and upgrades that are required to accommodate projected future conditions within the JOS service area, including aging infrastructure, anticipated growth within the system, emerging demands for recycled water, and potential new regulatory requirements, were evaluated in the MFP. Program and project level improvements were combined into six alternatives that are assessed in this draft EIS. Program-wide recommendations include: the expansion of the San Jose Creek WRP from its current capacity of 100 MGD to 125 MGD; process optimization upgrades at the San Jose Creek, Pomona, Los Coyotes, and Long Beach WRPs; and increased capacity along approximately 33 miles of trunk sewers. To address immediate need, Alternatives 1 through 4 propose a new or a modified ocean discharge system. Under Alternative 5 (No Project Alternative), there would be neither federal nor local approval of the project or program and the Sanitation Districts would continue to expand, upgrade, and operate the JOS in accordance with the 2010 JOS MFP (prepared in 1995). Alternative 6 (No-Federal-Action Alternative) consists of the activities that the Sanitation Districts would perform without the issuance of permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under Alternative 4, which is the recommended alternative, project elements for the ocean discharge system would include: a working shaft site at the JWPCP; an onshore tunnel between the JWPCP and the existing ocean outfall manifold structure at Royal Palms Beach near White Point; an exit shaft site at Royal Palms Beach; and the rehabilitation of the existing ocean outfalls. The total capital cost for the modified ocean discharge system under the recommended alternative is estimated at $550 million in 2011 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program implementation would ensure continued regulatory compliance and adequate JOS wastewater system capacity and reliability through the year 2050. Management systems would support increased beneficial use of recycled water and biosolids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Without the project, the potential for emergency discharges and/or sewer overflows into various water courses would increase. Project construction would result in significant impacts on aesthetic resources, peak day air quality, and paleontological resources. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations due to work at the JWPCP East shaft site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120028, Executive Summary--53 pages, Draft EIS--1,831 pages, Appendices-1,566 pages, Master Facilities Plan--317 pages, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 29 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Public Health KW - Recycling KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Sewers KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743315?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 19 of 30] T2 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1012743304; 15226-8_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a regional interconnected system of wastewater and treatment facilities known as the Joint Outfall System (JOS) in Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Seventeen of the 23 independent special districts that comprise the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) participate in a cooperative agreement to operate and maintain the JOS which serves five million people in 73 cities and unincorporated county areas, and spans 660 square miles. The JOS boundaries extend from the San Gabriel Mountain foothills to the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro Bay, and from San Bernardino and Orange Counties to the cities of Glendale and Los Angeles and to Santa Monica Bay. Wastewater from homes and businesses flows into local sewers, and through a 1,230-mile network of larger trunk sewers to seven wastewater treatment plants with a combined permitted capacity of 593 million gallons per day (MGD). Approximately one-third of the wastewater in the JOS system is treated at six water reclamation plants (WRPs), which produce high-quality recycled water that is beneficially reused or discharged to rivers and streams. The remaining two-thirds, which includes saltier industrial wastewater, is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson, California. The solids removed at the WRPs during the treatment process are returned to the trunk sewers to be processed at the JWPCP. From the JWPCP, the treated water is transported by two six-mile-long tunnels to Royal Palms Beach where the effluent exits four ocean outfalls which consist of seafloor pipelines that extend up to 1.5 miles offshore and reach a depth of 200 feet. The Sanitation Districts prepared the Clearwater Program Master Facilities Plan (MFP) to meet the wastewater management needs of the JOS through the year 2050. New facilities and upgrades that are required to accommodate projected future conditions within the JOS service area, including aging infrastructure, anticipated growth within the system, emerging demands for recycled water, and potential new regulatory requirements, were evaluated in the MFP. Program and project level improvements were combined into six alternatives that are assessed in this draft EIS. Program-wide recommendations include: the expansion of the San Jose Creek WRP from its current capacity of 100 MGD to 125 MGD; process optimization upgrades at the San Jose Creek, Pomona, Los Coyotes, and Long Beach WRPs; and increased capacity along approximately 33 miles of trunk sewers. To address immediate need, Alternatives 1 through 4 propose a new or a modified ocean discharge system. Under Alternative 5 (No Project Alternative), there would be neither federal nor local approval of the project or program and the Sanitation Districts would continue to expand, upgrade, and operate the JOS in accordance with the 2010 JOS MFP (prepared in 1995). Alternative 6 (No-Federal-Action Alternative) consists of the activities that the Sanitation Districts would perform without the issuance of permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under Alternative 4, which is the recommended alternative, project elements for the ocean discharge system would include: a working shaft site at the JWPCP; an onshore tunnel between the JWPCP and the existing ocean outfall manifold structure at Royal Palms Beach near White Point; an exit shaft site at Royal Palms Beach; and the rehabilitation of the existing ocean outfalls. The total capital cost for the modified ocean discharge system under the recommended alternative is estimated at $550 million in 2011 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program implementation would ensure continued regulatory compliance and adequate JOS wastewater system capacity and reliability through the year 2050. Management systems would support increased beneficial use of recycled water and biosolids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Without the project, the potential for emergency discharges and/or sewer overflows into various water courses would increase. Project construction would result in significant impacts on aesthetic resources, peak day air quality, and paleontological resources. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations due to work at the JWPCP East shaft site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120028, Executive Summary--53 pages, Draft EIS--1,831 pages, Appendices-1,566 pages, Master Facilities Plan--317 pages, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 19 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Public Health KW - Recycling KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Sewers KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743304?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 18 of 30] T2 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1012743299; 15226-8_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a regional interconnected system of wastewater and treatment facilities known as the Joint Outfall System (JOS) in Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Seventeen of the 23 independent special districts that comprise the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) participate in a cooperative agreement to operate and maintain the JOS which serves five million people in 73 cities and unincorporated county areas, and spans 660 square miles. The JOS boundaries extend from the San Gabriel Mountain foothills to the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro Bay, and from San Bernardino and Orange Counties to the cities of Glendale and Los Angeles and to Santa Monica Bay. Wastewater from homes and businesses flows into local sewers, and through a 1,230-mile network of larger trunk sewers to seven wastewater treatment plants with a combined permitted capacity of 593 million gallons per day (MGD). Approximately one-third of the wastewater in the JOS system is treated at six water reclamation plants (WRPs), which produce high-quality recycled water that is beneficially reused or discharged to rivers and streams. The remaining two-thirds, which includes saltier industrial wastewater, is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson, California. The solids removed at the WRPs during the treatment process are returned to the trunk sewers to be processed at the JWPCP. From the JWPCP, the treated water is transported by two six-mile-long tunnels to Royal Palms Beach where the effluent exits four ocean outfalls which consist of seafloor pipelines that extend up to 1.5 miles offshore and reach a depth of 200 feet. The Sanitation Districts prepared the Clearwater Program Master Facilities Plan (MFP) to meet the wastewater management needs of the JOS through the year 2050. New facilities and upgrades that are required to accommodate projected future conditions within the JOS service area, including aging infrastructure, anticipated growth within the system, emerging demands for recycled water, and potential new regulatory requirements, were evaluated in the MFP. Program and project level improvements were combined into six alternatives that are assessed in this draft EIS. Program-wide recommendations include: the expansion of the San Jose Creek WRP from its current capacity of 100 MGD to 125 MGD; process optimization upgrades at the San Jose Creek, Pomona, Los Coyotes, and Long Beach WRPs; and increased capacity along approximately 33 miles of trunk sewers. To address immediate need, Alternatives 1 through 4 propose a new or a modified ocean discharge system. Under Alternative 5 (No Project Alternative), there would be neither federal nor local approval of the project or program and the Sanitation Districts would continue to expand, upgrade, and operate the JOS in accordance with the 2010 JOS MFP (prepared in 1995). Alternative 6 (No-Federal-Action Alternative) consists of the activities that the Sanitation Districts would perform without the issuance of permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under Alternative 4, which is the recommended alternative, project elements for the ocean discharge system would include: a working shaft site at the JWPCP; an onshore tunnel between the JWPCP and the existing ocean outfall manifold structure at Royal Palms Beach near White Point; an exit shaft site at Royal Palms Beach; and the rehabilitation of the existing ocean outfalls. The total capital cost for the modified ocean discharge system under the recommended alternative is estimated at $550 million in 2011 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program implementation would ensure continued regulatory compliance and adequate JOS wastewater system capacity and reliability through the year 2050. Management systems would support increased beneficial use of recycled water and biosolids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Without the project, the potential for emergency discharges and/or sewer overflows into various water courses would increase. Project construction would result in significant impacts on aesthetic resources, peak day air quality, and paleontological resources. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations due to work at the JWPCP East shaft site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120028, Executive Summary--53 pages, Draft EIS--1,831 pages, Appendices-1,566 pages, Master Facilities Plan--317 pages, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 18 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Public Health KW - Recycling KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Sewers KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743299?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 30] T2 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1012743291; 15226-8_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a regional interconnected system of wastewater and treatment facilities known as the Joint Outfall System (JOS) in Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Seventeen of the 23 independent special districts that comprise the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) participate in a cooperative agreement to operate and maintain the JOS which serves five million people in 73 cities and unincorporated county areas, and spans 660 square miles. The JOS boundaries extend from the San Gabriel Mountain foothills to the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro Bay, and from San Bernardino and Orange Counties to the cities of Glendale and Los Angeles and to Santa Monica Bay. Wastewater from homes and businesses flows into local sewers, and through a 1,230-mile network of larger trunk sewers to seven wastewater treatment plants with a combined permitted capacity of 593 million gallons per day (MGD). Approximately one-third of the wastewater in the JOS system is treated at six water reclamation plants (WRPs), which produce high-quality recycled water that is beneficially reused or discharged to rivers and streams. The remaining two-thirds, which includes saltier industrial wastewater, is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson, California. The solids removed at the WRPs during the treatment process are returned to the trunk sewers to be processed at the JWPCP. From the JWPCP, the treated water is transported by two six-mile-long tunnels to Royal Palms Beach where the effluent exits four ocean outfalls which consist of seafloor pipelines that extend up to 1.5 miles offshore and reach a depth of 200 feet. The Sanitation Districts prepared the Clearwater Program Master Facilities Plan (MFP) to meet the wastewater management needs of the JOS through the year 2050. New facilities and upgrades that are required to accommodate projected future conditions within the JOS service area, including aging infrastructure, anticipated growth within the system, emerging demands for recycled water, and potential new regulatory requirements, were evaluated in the MFP. Program and project level improvements were combined into six alternatives that are assessed in this draft EIS. Program-wide recommendations include: the expansion of the San Jose Creek WRP from its current capacity of 100 MGD to 125 MGD; process optimization upgrades at the San Jose Creek, Pomona, Los Coyotes, and Long Beach WRPs; and increased capacity along approximately 33 miles of trunk sewers. To address immediate need, Alternatives 1 through 4 propose a new or a modified ocean discharge system. Under Alternative 5 (No Project Alternative), there would be neither federal nor local approval of the project or program and the Sanitation Districts would continue to expand, upgrade, and operate the JOS in accordance with the 2010 JOS MFP (prepared in 1995). Alternative 6 (No-Federal-Action Alternative) consists of the activities that the Sanitation Districts would perform without the issuance of permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under Alternative 4, which is the recommended alternative, project elements for the ocean discharge system would include: a working shaft site at the JWPCP; an onshore tunnel between the JWPCP and the existing ocean outfall manifold structure at Royal Palms Beach near White Point; an exit shaft site at Royal Palms Beach; and the rehabilitation of the existing ocean outfalls. The total capital cost for the modified ocean discharge system under the recommended alternative is estimated at $550 million in 2011 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program implementation would ensure continued regulatory compliance and adequate JOS wastewater system capacity and reliability through the year 2050. Management systems would support increased beneficial use of recycled water and biosolids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Without the project, the potential for emergency discharges and/or sewer overflows into various water courses would increase. Project construction would result in significant impacts on aesthetic resources, peak day air quality, and paleontological resources. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations due to work at the JWPCP East shaft site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120028, Executive Summary--53 pages, Draft EIS--1,831 pages, Appendices-1,566 pages, Master Facilities Plan--317 pages, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 17 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Public Health KW - Recycling KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Sewers KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743291?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 16 of 30] T2 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1012743286; 15226-8_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a regional interconnected system of wastewater and treatment facilities known as the Joint Outfall System (JOS) in Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Seventeen of the 23 independent special districts that comprise the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) participate in a cooperative agreement to operate and maintain the JOS which serves five million people in 73 cities and unincorporated county areas, and spans 660 square miles. The JOS boundaries extend from the San Gabriel Mountain foothills to the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro Bay, and from San Bernardino and Orange Counties to the cities of Glendale and Los Angeles and to Santa Monica Bay. Wastewater from homes and businesses flows into local sewers, and through a 1,230-mile network of larger trunk sewers to seven wastewater treatment plants with a combined permitted capacity of 593 million gallons per day (MGD). Approximately one-third of the wastewater in the JOS system is treated at six water reclamation plants (WRPs), which produce high-quality recycled water that is beneficially reused or discharged to rivers and streams. The remaining two-thirds, which includes saltier industrial wastewater, is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson, California. The solids removed at the WRPs during the treatment process are returned to the trunk sewers to be processed at the JWPCP. From the JWPCP, the treated water is transported by two six-mile-long tunnels to Royal Palms Beach where the effluent exits four ocean outfalls which consist of seafloor pipelines that extend up to 1.5 miles offshore and reach a depth of 200 feet. The Sanitation Districts prepared the Clearwater Program Master Facilities Plan (MFP) to meet the wastewater management needs of the JOS through the year 2050. New facilities and upgrades that are required to accommodate projected future conditions within the JOS service area, including aging infrastructure, anticipated growth within the system, emerging demands for recycled water, and potential new regulatory requirements, were evaluated in the MFP. Program and project level improvements were combined into six alternatives that are assessed in this draft EIS. Program-wide recommendations include: the expansion of the San Jose Creek WRP from its current capacity of 100 MGD to 125 MGD; process optimization upgrades at the San Jose Creek, Pomona, Los Coyotes, and Long Beach WRPs; and increased capacity along approximately 33 miles of trunk sewers. To address immediate need, Alternatives 1 through 4 propose a new or a modified ocean discharge system. Under Alternative 5 (No Project Alternative), there would be neither federal nor local approval of the project or program and the Sanitation Districts would continue to expand, upgrade, and operate the JOS in accordance with the 2010 JOS MFP (prepared in 1995). Alternative 6 (No-Federal-Action Alternative) consists of the activities that the Sanitation Districts would perform without the issuance of permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under Alternative 4, which is the recommended alternative, project elements for the ocean discharge system would include: a working shaft site at the JWPCP; an onshore tunnel between the JWPCP and the existing ocean outfall manifold structure at Royal Palms Beach near White Point; an exit shaft site at Royal Palms Beach; and the rehabilitation of the existing ocean outfalls. The total capital cost for the modified ocean discharge system under the recommended alternative is estimated at $550 million in 2011 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program implementation would ensure continued regulatory compliance and adequate JOS wastewater system capacity and reliability through the year 2050. Management systems would support increased beneficial use of recycled water and biosolids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Without the project, the potential for emergency discharges and/or sewer overflows into various water courses would increase. Project construction would result in significant impacts on aesthetic resources, peak day air quality, and paleontological resources. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations due to work at the JWPCP East shaft site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120028, Executive Summary--53 pages, Draft EIS--1,831 pages, Appendices-1,566 pages, Master Facilities Plan--317 pages, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 16 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Public Health KW - Recycling KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Sewers KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743286?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 15 of 30] T2 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1012743280; 15226-8_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a regional interconnected system of wastewater and treatment facilities known as the Joint Outfall System (JOS) in Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Seventeen of the 23 independent special districts that comprise the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) participate in a cooperative agreement to operate and maintain the JOS which serves five million people in 73 cities and unincorporated county areas, and spans 660 square miles. The JOS boundaries extend from the San Gabriel Mountain foothills to the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro Bay, and from San Bernardino and Orange Counties to the cities of Glendale and Los Angeles and to Santa Monica Bay. Wastewater from homes and businesses flows into local sewers, and through a 1,230-mile network of larger trunk sewers to seven wastewater treatment plants with a combined permitted capacity of 593 million gallons per day (MGD). Approximately one-third of the wastewater in the JOS system is treated at six water reclamation plants (WRPs), which produce high-quality recycled water that is beneficially reused or discharged to rivers and streams. The remaining two-thirds, which includes saltier industrial wastewater, is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson, California. The solids removed at the WRPs during the treatment process are returned to the trunk sewers to be processed at the JWPCP. From the JWPCP, the treated water is transported by two six-mile-long tunnels to Royal Palms Beach where the effluent exits four ocean outfalls which consist of seafloor pipelines that extend up to 1.5 miles offshore and reach a depth of 200 feet. The Sanitation Districts prepared the Clearwater Program Master Facilities Plan (MFP) to meet the wastewater management needs of the JOS through the year 2050. New facilities and upgrades that are required to accommodate projected future conditions within the JOS service area, including aging infrastructure, anticipated growth within the system, emerging demands for recycled water, and potential new regulatory requirements, were evaluated in the MFP. Program and project level improvements were combined into six alternatives that are assessed in this draft EIS. Program-wide recommendations include: the expansion of the San Jose Creek WRP from its current capacity of 100 MGD to 125 MGD; process optimization upgrades at the San Jose Creek, Pomona, Los Coyotes, and Long Beach WRPs; and increased capacity along approximately 33 miles of trunk sewers. To address immediate need, Alternatives 1 through 4 propose a new or a modified ocean discharge system. Under Alternative 5 (No Project Alternative), there would be neither federal nor local approval of the project or program and the Sanitation Districts would continue to expand, upgrade, and operate the JOS in accordance with the 2010 JOS MFP (prepared in 1995). Alternative 6 (No-Federal-Action Alternative) consists of the activities that the Sanitation Districts would perform without the issuance of permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under Alternative 4, which is the recommended alternative, project elements for the ocean discharge system would include: a working shaft site at the JWPCP; an onshore tunnel between the JWPCP and the existing ocean outfall manifold structure at Royal Palms Beach near White Point; an exit shaft site at Royal Palms Beach; and the rehabilitation of the existing ocean outfalls. The total capital cost for the modified ocean discharge system under the recommended alternative is estimated at $550 million in 2011 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program implementation would ensure continued regulatory compliance and adequate JOS wastewater system capacity and reliability through the year 2050. Management systems would support increased beneficial use of recycled water and biosolids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Without the project, the potential for emergency discharges and/or sewer overflows into various water courses would increase. Project construction would result in significant impacts on aesthetic resources, peak day air quality, and paleontological resources. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations due to work at the JWPCP East shaft site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120028, Executive Summary--53 pages, Draft EIS--1,831 pages, Appendices-1,566 pages, Master Facilities Plan--317 pages, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 15 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Public Health KW - Recycling KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Sewers KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743280?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 20 of 30] T2 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1012743124; 15226-8_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a regional interconnected system of wastewater and treatment facilities known as the Joint Outfall System (JOS) in Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Seventeen of the 23 independent special districts that comprise the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) participate in a cooperative agreement to operate and maintain the JOS which serves five million people in 73 cities and unincorporated county areas, and spans 660 square miles. The JOS boundaries extend from the San Gabriel Mountain foothills to the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro Bay, and from San Bernardino and Orange Counties to the cities of Glendale and Los Angeles and to Santa Monica Bay. Wastewater from homes and businesses flows into local sewers, and through a 1,230-mile network of larger trunk sewers to seven wastewater treatment plants with a combined permitted capacity of 593 million gallons per day (MGD). Approximately one-third of the wastewater in the JOS system is treated at six water reclamation plants (WRPs), which produce high-quality recycled water that is beneficially reused or discharged to rivers and streams. The remaining two-thirds, which includes saltier industrial wastewater, is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson, California. The solids removed at the WRPs during the treatment process are returned to the trunk sewers to be processed at the JWPCP. From the JWPCP, the treated water is transported by two six-mile-long tunnels to Royal Palms Beach where the effluent exits four ocean outfalls which consist of seafloor pipelines that extend up to 1.5 miles offshore and reach a depth of 200 feet. The Sanitation Districts prepared the Clearwater Program Master Facilities Plan (MFP) to meet the wastewater management needs of the JOS through the year 2050. New facilities and upgrades that are required to accommodate projected future conditions within the JOS service area, including aging infrastructure, anticipated growth within the system, emerging demands for recycled water, and potential new regulatory requirements, were evaluated in the MFP. Program and project level improvements were combined into six alternatives that are assessed in this draft EIS. Program-wide recommendations include: the expansion of the San Jose Creek WRP from its current capacity of 100 MGD to 125 MGD; process optimization upgrades at the San Jose Creek, Pomona, Los Coyotes, and Long Beach WRPs; and increased capacity along approximately 33 miles of trunk sewers. To address immediate need, Alternatives 1 through 4 propose a new or a modified ocean discharge system. Under Alternative 5 (No Project Alternative), there would be neither federal nor local approval of the project or program and the Sanitation Districts would continue to expand, upgrade, and operate the JOS in accordance with the 2010 JOS MFP (prepared in 1995). Alternative 6 (No-Federal-Action Alternative) consists of the activities that the Sanitation Districts would perform without the issuance of permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under Alternative 4, which is the recommended alternative, project elements for the ocean discharge system would include: a working shaft site at the JWPCP; an onshore tunnel between the JWPCP and the existing ocean outfall manifold structure at Royal Palms Beach near White Point; an exit shaft site at Royal Palms Beach; and the rehabilitation of the existing ocean outfalls. The total capital cost for the modified ocean discharge system under the recommended alternative is estimated at $550 million in 2011 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program implementation would ensure continued regulatory compliance and adequate JOS wastewater system capacity and reliability through the year 2050. Management systems would support increased beneficial use of recycled water and biosolids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Without the project, the potential for emergency discharges and/or sewer overflows into various water courses would increase. Project construction would result in significant impacts on aesthetic resources, peak day air quality, and paleontological resources. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations due to work at the JWPCP East shaft site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120028, Executive Summary--53 pages, Draft EIS--1,831 pages, Appendices-1,566 pages, Master Facilities Plan--317 pages, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 20 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Public Health KW - Recycling KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Sewers KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743124?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID-CURRITUCK BRIDGE STUDY, CURRITUCK AND DARE COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - MID-CURRITUCK BRIDGE STUDY, CURRITUCK AND DARE COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 1012743121; 15227-9_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements in the Currituck Sound area, with focus on the consideration of a new Mid-Currituck Bridge from the mainland to the Outer Banks, Currituck and Dare counties, North Carolina, are proposed. The project area encompasses US 158 between its intersection with NC 168 and its intersection with NC 12, and NC 12 from its intersection with US 158 north to where it terminates in the community of Corolla. Six alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. The preferred alternative, known as MCB4/C1 with Option A, would include an interchange with US 158 on the mainland, a toll plaza at US 158, a bridge across Maple Swamp, a bridge across Currituck Sound, and some widening of NC 12 on the Outer Banks. Tolls on the Mid-Currituck Bridge would be collected by using electronic toll collection, cash, and credit card. Several measures to reduce hurricane evacuation times are incorporated, including the ability to reverse the center lane on US 158 between the Mid-Currituck Bridge interchange and NC 168, and adding 1,600 feet of a new third outbound lane on the Outer Banks to the west of the NC 12/US 158 intersection to provide additional road capacity during a hurricane evacuation. Additional design refinements include: a median acceleration lane at Waterlily Road; concentration of four-lane widening along NC 12 at the bridge terminus, the commercial area surrounding Albacore Street, and Currituck Clubhouse Drive; construction of roundabouts on NC 12 at the bridge landing and Currituck Clubhouse Drive; and provision of marked pedestrian crossings along NC 12 where it would be widened. Preliminary cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $502 million to $594 million. Construction is expected to begin in the fourth quarter of 2012 and the facility is expected to open to traffic in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed bridge would reduce travel time and congestion, as well as provide an alternative hurricane evacuation route for the northern Outer Banks. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would increase turbidity in waters of Currituck Sound and the bridge would introduce a new source of pollution via bridge runoff. The preferred alternative would require filling 7.9 acres of wetlands and relocation of six residences, three businesses, and 20 gravesites. The bridge would shade 27.8 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation and fish habitat and bridge features would affect views of Currituck Sound. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0154D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 120029, Final EIS--294 pages, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-10-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743121?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID-CURRITUCK+BRIDGE+STUDY%2C+CURRITUCK+AND+DARE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MID-CURRITUCK+BRIDGE+STUDY%2C+CURRITUCK+AND+DARE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 30] T2 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1012743111; 15226-8_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a regional interconnected system of wastewater and treatment facilities known as the Joint Outfall System (JOS) in Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Seventeen of the 23 independent special districts that comprise the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) participate in a cooperative agreement to operate and maintain the JOS which serves five million people in 73 cities and unincorporated county areas, and spans 660 square miles. The JOS boundaries extend from the San Gabriel Mountain foothills to the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro Bay, and from San Bernardino and Orange Counties to the cities of Glendale and Los Angeles and to Santa Monica Bay. Wastewater from homes and businesses flows into local sewers, and through a 1,230-mile network of larger trunk sewers to seven wastewater treatment plants with a combined permitted capacity of 593 million gallons per day (MGD). Approximately one-third of the wastewater in the JOS system is treated at six water reclamation plants (WRPs), which produce high-quality recycled water that is beneficially reused or discharged to rivers and streams. The remaining two-thirds, which includes saltier industrial wastewater, is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson, California. The solids removed at the WRPs during the treatment process are returned to the trunk sewers to be processed at the JWPCP. From the JWPCP, the treated water is transported by two six-mile-long tunnels to Royal Palms Beach where the effluent exits four ocean outfalls which consist of seafloor pipelines that extend up to 1.5 miles offshore and reach a depth of 200 feet. The Sanitation Districts prepared the Clearwater Program Master Facilities Plan (MFP) to meet the wastewater management needs of the JOS through the year 2050. New facilities and upgrades that are required to accommodate projected future conditions within the JOS service area, including aging infrastructure, anticipated growth within the system, emerging demands for recycled water, and potential new regulatory requirements, were evaluated in the MFP. Program and project level improvements were combined into six alternatives that are assessed in this draft EIS. Program-wide recommendations include: the expansion of the San Jose Creek WRP from its current capacity of 100 MGD to 125 MGD; process optimization upgrades at the San Jose Creek, Pomona, Los Coyotes, and Long Beach WRPs; and increased capacity along approximately 33 miles of trunk sewers. To address immediate need, Alternatives 1 through 4 propose a new or a modified ocean discharge system. Under Alternative 5 (No Project Alternative), there would be neither federal nor local approval of the project or program and the Sanitation Districts would continue to expand, upgrade, and operate the JOS in accordance with the 2010 JOS MFP (prepared in 1995). Alternative 6 (No-Federal-Action Alternative) consists of the activities that the Sanitation Districts would perform without the issuance of permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under Alternative 4, which is the recommended alternative, project elements for the ocean discharge system would include: a working shaft site at the JWPCP; an onshore tunnel between the JWPCP and the existing ocean outfall manifold structure at Royal Palms Beach near White Point; an exit shaft site at Royal Palms Beach; and the rehabilitation of the existing ocean outfalls. The total capital cost for the modified ocean discharge system under the recommended alternative is estimated at $550 million in 2011 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program implementation would ensure continued regulatory compliance and adequate JOS wastewater system capacity and reliability through the year 2050. Management systems would support increased beneficial use of recycled water and biosolids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Without the project, the potential for emergency discharges and/or sewer overflows into various water courses would increase. Project construction would result in significant impacts on aesthetic resources, peak day air quality, and paleontological resources. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations due to work at the JWPCP East shaft site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120028, Executive Summary--53 pages, Draft EIS--1,831 pages, Appendices-1,566 pages, Master Facilities Plan--317 pages, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Public Health KW - Recycling KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Sewers KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743111?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 30] T2 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1012743103; 15226-8_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a regional interconnected system of wastewater and treatment facilities known as the Joint Outfall System (JOS) in Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Seventeen of the 23 independent special districts that comprise the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) participate in a cooperative agreement to operate and maintain the JOS which serves five million people in 73 cities and unincorporated county areas, and spans 660 square miles. The JOS boundaries extend from the San Gabriel Mountain foothills to the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro Bay, and from San Bernardino and Orange Counties to the cities of Glendale and Los Angeles and to Santa Monica Bay. Wastewater from homes and businesses flows into local sewers, and through a 1,230-mile network of larger trunk sewers to seven wastewater treatment plants with a combined permitted capacity of 593 million gallons per day (MGD). Approximately one-third of the wastewater in the JOS system is treated at six water reclamation plants (WRPs), which produce high-quality recycled water that is beneficially reused or discharged to rivers and streams. The remaining two-thirds, which includes saltier industrial wastewater, is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson, California. The solids removed at the WRPs during the treatment process are returned to the trunk sewers to be processed at the JWPCP. From the JWPCP, the treated water is transported by two six-mile-long tunnels to Royal Palms Beach where the effluent exits four ocean outfalls which consist of seafloor pipelines that extend up to 1.5 miles offshore and reach a depth of 200 feet. The Sanitation Districts prepared the Clearwater Program Master Facilities Plan (MFP) to meet the wastewater management needs of the JOS through the year 2050. New facilities and upgrades that are required to accommodate projected future conditions within the JOS service area, including aging infrastructure, anticipated growth within the system, emerging demands for recycled water, and potential new regulatory requirements, were evaluated in the MFP. Program and project level improvements were combined into six alternatives that are assessed in this draft EIS. Program-wide recommendations include: the expansion of the San Jose Creek WRP from its current capacity of 100 MGD to 125 MGD; process optimization upgrades at the San Jose Creek, Pomona, Los Coyotes, and Long Beach WRPs; and increased capacity along approximately 33 miles of trunk sewers. To address immediate need, Alternatives 1 through 4 propose a new or a modified ocean discharge system. Under Alternative 5 (No Project Alternative), there would be neither federal nor local approval of the project or program and the Sanitation Districts would continue to expand, upgrade, and operate the JOS in accordance with the 2010 JOS MFP (prepared in 1995). Alternative 6 (No-Federal-Action Alternative) consists of the activities that the Sanitation Districts would perform without the issuance of permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under Alternative 4, which is the recommended alternative, project elements for the ocean discharge system would include: a working shaft site at the JWPCP; an onshore tunnel between the JWPCP and the existing ocean outfall manifold structure at Royal Palms Beach near White Point; an exit shaft site at Royal Palms Beach; and the rehabilitation of the existing ocean outfalls. The total capital cost for the modified ocean discharge system under the recommended alternative is estimated at $550 million in 2011 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program implementation would ensure continued regulatory compliance and adequate JOS wastewater system capacity and reliability through the year 2050. Management systems would support increased beneficial use of recycled water and biosolids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Without the project, the potential for emergency discharges and/or sewer overflows into various water courses would increase. Project construction would result in significant impacts on aesthetic resources, peak day air quality, and paleontological resources. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations due to work at the JWPCP East shaft site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120028, Executive Summary--53 pages, Draft EIS--1,831 pages, Appendices-1,566 pages, Master Facilities Plan--317 pages, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Public Health KW - Recycling KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Sewers KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743103?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 28 of 30] T2 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1012743100; 15226-8_0028 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a regional interconnected system of wastewater and treatment facilities known as the Joint Outfall System (JOS) in Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Seventeen of the 23 independent special districts that comprise the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) participate in a cooperative agreement to operate and maintain the JOS which serves five million people in 73 cities and unincorporated county areas, and spans 660 square miles. The JOS boundaries extend from the San Gabriel Mountain foothills to the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro Bay, and from San Bernardino and Orange Counties to the cities of Glendale and Los Angeles and to Santa Monica Bay. Wastewater from homes and businesses flows into local sewers, and through a 1,230-mile network of larger trunk sewers to seven wastewater treatment plants with a combined permitted capacity of 593 million gallons per day (MGD). Approximately one-third of the wastewater in the JOS system is treated at six water reclamation plants (WRPs), which produce high-quality recycled water that is beneficially reused or discharged to rivers and streams. The remaining two-thirds, which includes saltier industrial wastewater, is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson, California. The solids removed at the WRPs during the treatment process are returned to the trunk sewers to be processed at the JWPCP. From the JWPCP, the treated water is transported by two six-mile-long tunnels to Royal Palms Beach where the effluent exits four ocean outfalls which consist of seafloor pipelines that extend up to 1.5 miles offshore and reach a depth of 200 feet. The Sanitation Districts prepared the Clearwater Program Master Facilities Plan (MFP) to meet the wastewater management needs of the JOS through the year 2050. New facilities and upgrades that are required to accommodate projected future conditions within the JOS service area, including aging infrastructure, anticipated growth within the system, emerging demands for recycled water, and potential new regulatory requirements, were evaluated in the MFP. Program and project level improvements were combined into six alternatives that are assessed in this draft EIS. Program-wide recommendations include: the expansion of the San Jose Creek WRP from its current capacity of 100 MGD to 125 MGD; process optimization upgrades at the San Jose Creek, Pomona, Los Coyotes, and Long Beach WRPs; and increased capacity along approximately 33 miles of trunk sewers. To address immediate need, Alternatives 1 through 4 propose a new or a modified ocean discharge system. Under Alternative 5 (No Project Alternative), there would be neither federal nor local approval of the project or program and the Sanitation Districts would continue to expand, upgrade, and operate the JOS in accordance with the 2010 JOS MFP (prepared in 1995). Alternative 6 (No-Federal-Action Alternative) consists of the activities that the Sanitation Districts would perform without the issuance of permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under Alternative 4, which is the recommended alternative, project elements for the ocean discharge system would include: a working shaft site at the JWPCP; an onshore tunnel between the JWPCP and the existing ocean outfall manifold structure at Royal Palms Beach near White Point; an exit shaft site at Royal Palms Beach; and the rehabilitation of the existing ocean outfalls. The total capital cost for the modified ocean discharge system under the recommended alternative is estimated at $550 million in 2011 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program implementation would ensure continued regulatory compliance and adequate JOS wastewater system capacity and reliability through the year 2050. Management systems would support increased beneficial use of recycled water and biosolids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Without the project, the potential for emergency discharges and/or sewer overflows into various water courses would increase. Project construction would result in significant impacts on aesthetic resources, peak day air quality, and paleontological resources. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations due to work at the JWPCP East shaft site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120028, Executive Summary--53 pages, Draft EIS--1,831 pages, Appendices-1,566 pages, Master Facilities Plan--317 pages, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 28 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Public Health KW - Recycling KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Sewers KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743100?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 30] T2 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1012743091; 15226-8_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a regional interconnected system of wastewater and treatment facilities known as the Joint Outfall System (JOS) in Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Seventeen of the 23 independent special districts that comprise the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) participate in a cooperative agreement to operate and maintain the JOS which serves five million people in 73 cities and unincorporated county areas, and spans 660 square miles. The JOS boundaries extend from the San Gabriel Mountain foothills to the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro Bay, and from San Bernardino and Orange Counties to the cities of Glendale and Los Angeles and to Santa Monica Bay. Wastewater from homes and businesses flows into local sewers, and through a 1,230-mile network of larger trunk sewers to seven wastewater treatment plants with a combined permitted capacity of 593 million gallons per day (MGD). Approximately one-third of the wastewater in the JOS system is treated at six water reclamation plants (WRPs), which produce high-quality recycled water that is beneficially reused or discharged to rivers and streams. The remaining two-thirds, which includes saltier industrial wastewater, is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson, California. The solids removed at the WRPs during the treatment process are returned to the trunk sewers to be processed at the JWPCP. From the JWPCP, the treated water is transported by two six-mile-long tunnels to Royal Palms Beach where the effluent exits four ocean outfalls which consist of seafloor pipelines that extend up to 1.5 miles offshore and reach a depth of 200 feet. The Sanitation Districts prepared the Clearwater Program Master Facilities Plan (MFP) to meet the wastewater management needs of the JOS through the year 2050. New facilities and upgrades that are required to accommodate projected future conditions within the JOS service area, including aging infrastructure, anticipated growth within the system, emerging demands for recycled water, and potential new regulatory requirements, were evaluated in the MFP. Program and project level improvements were combined into six alternatives that are assessed in this draft EIS. Program-wide recommendations include: the expansion of the San Jose Creek WRP from its current capacity of 100 MGD to 125 MGD; process optimization upgrades at the San Jose Creek, Pomona, Los Coyotes, and Long Beach WRPs; and increased capacity along approximately 33 miles of trunk sewers. To address immediate need, Alternatives 1 through 4 propose a new or a modified ocean discharge system. Under Alternative 5 (No Project Alternative), there would be neither federal nor local approval of the project or program and the Sanitation Districts would continue to expand, upgrade, and operate the JOS in accordance with the 2010 JOS MFP (prepared in 1995). Alternative 6 (No-Federal-Action Alternative) consists of the activities that the Sanitation Districts would perform without the issuance of permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under Alternative 4, which is the recommended alternative, project elements for the ocean discharge system would include: a working shaft site at the JWPCP; an onshore tunnel between the JWPCP and the existing ocean outfall manifold structure at Royal Palms Beach near White Point; an exit shaft site at Royal Palms Beach; and the rehabilitation of the existing ocean outfalls. The total capital cost for the modified ocean discharge system under the recommended alternative is estimated at $550 million in 2011 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program implementation would ensure continued regulatory compliance and adequate JOS wastewater system capacity and reliability through the year 2050. Management systems would support increased beneficial use of recycled water and biosolids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Without the project, the potential for emergency discharges and/or sewer overflows into various water courses would increase. Project construction would result in significant impacts on aesthetic resources, peak day air quality, and paleontological resources. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations due to work at the JWPCP East shaft site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120028, Executive Summary--53 pages, Draft EIS--1,831 pages, Appendices-1,566 pages, Master Facilities Plan--317 pages, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Public Health KW - Recycling KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Sewers KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743091?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 27 of 30] T2 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1012743089; 15226-8_0027 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a regional interconnected system of wastewater and treatment facilities known as the Joint Outfall System (JOS) in Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Seventeen of the 23 independent special districts that comprise the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) participate in a cooperative agreement to operate and maintain the JOS which serves five million people in 73 cities and unincorporated county areas, and spans 660 square miles. The JOS boundaries extend from the San Gabriel Mountain foothills to the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro Bay, and from San Bernardino and Orange Counties to the cities of Glendale and Los Angeles and to Santa Monica Bay. Wastewater from homes and businesses flows into local sewers, and through a 1,230-mile network of larger trunk sewers to seven wastewater treatment plants with a combined permitted capacity of 593 million gallons per day (MGD). Approximately one-third of the wastewater in the JOS system is treated at six water reclamation plants (WRPs), which produce high-quality recycled water that is beneficially reused or discharged to rivers and streams. The remaining two-thirds, which includes saltier industrial wastewater, is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson, California. The solids removed at the WRPs during the treatment process are returned to the trunk sewers to be processed at the JWPCP. From the JWPCP, the treated water is transported by two six-mile-long tunnels to Royal Palms Beach where the effluent exits four ocean outfalls which consist of seafloor pipelines that extend up to 1.5 miles offshore and reach a depth of 200 feet. The Sanitation Districts prepared the Clearwater Program Master Facilities Plan (MFP) to meet the wastewater management needs of the JOS through the year 2050. New facilities and upgrades that are required to accommodate projected future conditions within the JOS service area, including aging infrastructure, anticipated growth within the system, emerging demands for recycled water, and potential new regulatory requirements, were evaluated in the MFP. Program and project level improvements were combined into six alternatives that are assessed in this draft EIS. Program-wide recommendations include: the expansion of the San Jose Creek WRP from its current capacity of 100 MGD to 125 MGD; process optimization upgrades at the San Jose Creek, Pomona, Los Coyotes, and Long Beach WRPs; and increased capacity along approximately 33 miles of trunk sewers. To address immediate need, Alternatives 1 through 4 propose a new or a modified ocean discharge system. Under Alternative 5 (No Project Alternative), there would be neither federal nor local approval of the project or program and the Sanitation Districts would continue to expand, upgrade, and operate the JOS in accordance with the 2010 JOS MFP (prepared in 1995). Alternative 6 (No-Federal-Action Alternative) consists of the activities that the Sanitation Districts would perform without the issuance of permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under Alternative 4, which is the recommended alternative, project elements for the ocean discharge system would include: a working shaft site at the JWPCP; an onshore tunnel between the JWPCP and the existing ocean outfall manifold structure at Royal Palms Beach near White Point; an exit shaft site at Royal Palms Beach; and the rehabilitation of the existing ocean outfalls. The total capital cost for the modified ocean discharge system under the recommended alternative is estimated at $550 million in 2011 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program implementation would ensure continued regulatory compliance and adequate JOS wastewater system capacity and reliability through the year 2050. Management systems would support increased beneficial use of recycled water and biosolids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Without the project, the potential for emergency discharges and/or sewer overflows into various water courses would increase. Project construction would result in significant impacts on aesthetic resources, peak day air quality, and paleontological resources. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations due to work at the JWPCP East shaft site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120028, Executive Summary--53 pages, Draft EIS--1,831 pages, Appendices-1,566 pages, Master Facilities Plan--317 pages, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 27 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Public Health KW - Recycling KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Sewers KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743089?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 30] T2 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1012743081; 15226-8_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a regional interconnected system of wastewater and treatment facilities known as the Joint Outfall System (JOS) in Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Seventeen of the 23 independent special districts that comprise the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) participate in a cooperative agreement to operate and maintain the JOS which serves five million people in 73 cities and unincorporated county areas, and spans 660 square miles. The JOS boundaries extend from the San Gabriel Mountain foothills to the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro Bay, and from San Bernardino and Orange Counties to the cities of Glendale and Los Angeles and to Santa Monica Bay. Wastewater from homes and businesses flows into local sewers, and through a 1,230-mile network of larger trunk sewers to seven wastewater treatment plants with a combined permitted capacity of 593 million gallons per day (MGD). Approximately one-third of the wastewater in the JOS system is treated at six water reclamation plants (WRPs), which produce high-quality recycled water that is beneficially reused or discharged to rivers and streams. The remaining two-thirds, which includes saltier industrial wastewater, is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson, California. The solids removed at the WRPs during the treatment process are returned to the trunk sewers to be processed at the JWPCP. From the JWPCP, the treated water is transported by two six-mile-long tunnels to Royal Palms Beach where the effluent exits four ocean outfalls which consist of seafloor pipelines that extend up to 1.5 miles offshore and reach a depth of 200 feet. The Sanitation Districts prepared the Clearwater Program Master Facilities Plan (MFP) to meet the wastewater management needs of the JOS through the year 2050. New facilities and upgrades that are required to accommodate projected future conditions within the JOS service area, including aging infrastructure, anticipated growth within the system, emerging demands for recycled water, and potential new regulatory requirements, were evaluated in the MFP. Program and project level improvements were combined into six alternatives that are assessed in this draft EIS. Program-wide recommendations include: the expansion of the San Jose Creek WRP from its current capacity of 100 MGD to 125 MGD; process optimization upgrades at the San Jose Creek, Pomona, Los Coyotes, and Long Beach WRPs; and increased capacity along approximately 33 miles of trunk sewers. To address immediate need, Alternatives 1 through 4 propose a new or a modified ocean discharge system. Under Alternative 5 (No Project Alternative), there would be neither federal nor local approval of the project or program and the Sanitation Districts would continue to expand, upgrade, and operate the JOS in accordance with the 2010 JOS MFP (prepared in 1995). Alternative 6 (No-Federal-Action Alternative) consists of the activities that the Sanitation Districts would perform without the issuance of permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under Alternative 4, which is the recommended alternative, project elements for the ocean discharge system would include: a working shaft site at the JWPCP; an onshore tunnel between the JWPCP and the existing ocean outfall manifold structure at Royal Palms Beach near White Point; an exit shaft site at Royal Palms Beach; and the rehabilitation of the existing ocean outfalls. The total capital cost for the modified ocean discharge system under the recommended alternative is estimated at $550 million in 2011 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program implementation would ensure continued regulatory compliance and adequate JOS wastewater system capacity and reliability through the year 2050. Management systems would support increased beneficial use of recycled water and biosolids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Without the project, the potential for emergency discharges and/or sewer overflows into various water courses would increase. Project construction would result in significant impacts on aesthetic resources, peak day air quality, and paleontological resources. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations due to work at the JWPCP East shaft site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120028, Executive Summary--53 pages, Draft EIS--1,831 pages, Appendices-1,566 pages, Master Facilities Plan--317 pages, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Public Health KW - Recycling KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Sewers KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743081?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 26 of 30] T2 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1012743080; 15226-8_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a regional interconnected system of wastewater and treatment facilities known as the Joint Outfall System (JOS) in Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Seventeen of the 23 independent special districts that comprise the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) participate in a cooperative agreement to operate and maintain the JOS which serves five million people in 73 cities and unincorporated county areas, and spans 660 square miles. The JOS boundaries extend from the San Gabriel Mountain foothills to the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro Bay, and from San Bernardino and Orange Counties to the cities of Glendale and Los Angeles and to Santa Monica Bay. Wastewater from homes and businesses flows into local sewers, and through a 1,230-mile network of larger trunk sewers to seven wastewater treatment plants with a combined permitted capacity of 593 million gallons per day (MGD). Approximately one-third of the wastewater in the JOS system is treated at six water reclamation plants (WRPs), which produce high-quality recycled water that is beneficially reused or discharged to rivers and streams. The remaining two-thirds, which includes saltier industrial wastewater, is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson, California. The solids removed at the WRPs during the treatment process are returned to the trunk sewers to be processed at the JWPCP. From the JWPCP, the treated water is transported by two six-mile-long tunnels to Royal Palms Beach where the effluent exits four ocean outfalls which consist of seafloor pipelines that extend up to 1.5 miles offshore and reach a depth of 200 feet. The Sanitation Districts prepared the Clearwater Program Master Facilities Plan (MFP) to meet the wastewater management needs of the JOS through the year 2050. New facilities and upgrades that are required to accommodate projected future conditions within the JOS service area, including aging infrastructure, anticipated growth within the system, emerging demands for recycled water, and potential new regulatory requirements, were evaluated in the MFP. Program and project level improvements were combined into six alternatives that are assessed in this draft EIS. Program-wide recommendations include: the expansion of the San Jose Creek WRP from its current capacity of 100 MGD to 125 MGD; process optimization upgrades at the San Jose Creek, Pomona, Los Coyotes, and Long Beach WRPs; and increased capacity along approximately 33 miles of trunk sewers. To address immediate need, Alternatives 1 through 4 propose a new or a modified ocean discharge system. Under Alternative 5 (No Project Alternative), there would be neither federal nor local approval of the project or program and the Sanitation Districts would continue to expand, upgrade, and operate the JOS in accordance with the 2010 JOS MFP (prepared in 1995). Alternative 6 (No-Federal-Action Alternative) consists of the activities that the Sanitation Districts would perform without the issuance of permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under Alternative 4, which is the recommended alternative, project elements for the ocean discharge system would include: a working shaft site at the JWPCP; an onshore tunnel between the JWPCP and the existing ocean outfall manifold structure at Royal Palms Beach near White Point; an exit shaft site at Royal Palms Beach; and the rehabilitation of the existing ocean outfalls. The total capital cost for the modified ocean discharge system under the recommended alternative is estimated at $550 million in 2011 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program implementation would ensure continued regulatory compliance and adequate JOS wastewater system capacity and reliability through the year 2050. Management systems would support increased beneficial use of recycled water and biosolids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Without the project, the potential for emergency discharges and/or sewer overflows into various water courses would increase. Project construction would result in significant impacts on aesthetic resources, peak day air quality, and paleontological resources. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations due to work at the JWPCP East shaft site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120028, Executive Summary--53 pages, Draft EIS--1,831 pages, Appendices-1,566 pages, Master Facilities Plan--317 pages, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 26 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Public Health KW - Recycling KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Sewers KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743080?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 25 of 30] T2 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1012742759; 15226-8_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a regional interconnected system of wastewater and treatment facilities known as the Joint Outfall System (JOS) in Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Seventeen of the 23 independent special districts that comprise the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) participate in a cooperative agreement to operate and maintain the JOS which serves five million people in 73 cities and unincorporated county areas, and spans 660 square miles. The JOS boundaries extend from the San Gabriel Mountain foothills to the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro Bay, and from San Bernardino and Orange Counties to the cities of Glendale and Los Angeles and to Santa Monica Bay. Wastewater from homes and businesses flows into local sewers, and through a 1,230-mile network of larger trunk sewers to seven wastewater treatment plants with a combined permitted capacity of 593 million gallons per day (MGD). Approximately one-third of the wastewater in the JOS system is treated at six water reclamation plants (WRPs), which produce high-quality recycled water that is beneficially reused or discharged to rivers and streams. The remaining two-thirds, which includes saltier industrial wastewater, is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson, California. The solids removed at the WRPs during the treatment process are returned to the trunk sewers to be processed at the JWPCP. From the JWPCP, the treated water is transported by two six-mile-long tunnels to Royal Palms Beach where the effluent exits four ocean outfalls which consist of seafloor pipelines that extend up to 1.5 miles offshore and reach a depth of 200 feet. The Sanitation Districts prepared the Clearwater Program Master Facilities Plan (MFP) to meet the wastewater management needs of the JOS through the year 2050. New facilities and upgrades that are required to accommodate projected future conditions within the JOS service area, including aging infrastructure, anticipated growth within the system, emerging demands for recycled water, and potential new regulatory requirements, were evaluated in the MFP. Program and project level improvements were combined into six alternatives that are assessed in this draft EIS. Program-wide recommendations include: the expansion of the San Jose Creek WRP from its current capacity of 100 MGD to 125 MGD; process optimization upgrades at the San Jose Creek, Pomona, Los Coyotes, and Long Beach WRPs; and increased capacity along approximately 33 miles of trunk sewers. To address immediate need, Alternatives 1 through 4 propose a new or a modified ocean discharge system. Under Alternative 5 (No Project Alternative), there would be neither federal nor local approval of the project or program and the Sanitation Districts would continue to expand, upgrade, and operate the JOS in accordance with the 2010 JOS MFP (prepared in 1995). Alternative 6 (No-Federal-Action Alternative) consists of the activities that the Sanitation Districts would perform without the issuance of permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under Alternative 4, which is the recommended alternative, project elements for the ocean discharge system would include: a working shaft site at the JWPCP; an onshore tunnel between the JWPCP and the existing ocean outfall manifold structure at Royal Palms Beach near White Point; an exit shaft site at Royal Palms Beach; and the rehabilitation of the existing ocean outfalls. The total capital cost for the modified ocean discharge system under the recommended alternative is estimated at $550 million in 2011 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program implementation would ensure continued regulatory compliance and adequate JOS wastewater system capacity and reliability through the year 2050. Management systems would support increased beneficial use of recycled water and biosolids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Without the project, the potential for emergency discharges and/or sewer overflows into various water courses would increase. Project construction would result in significant impacts on aesthetic resources, peak day air quality, and paleontological resources. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations due to work at the JWPCP East shaft site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120028, Executive Summary--53 pages, Draft EIS--1,831 pages, Appendices-1,566 pages, Master Facilities Plan--317 pages, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 25 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Public Health KW - Recycling KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Sewers KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742759?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 24 of 30] T2 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1012742748; 15226-8_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a regional interconnected system of wastewater and treatment facilities known as the Joint Outfall System (JOS) in Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Seventeen of the 23 independent special districts that comprise the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) participate in a cooperative agreement to operate and maintain the JOS which serves five million people in 73 cities and unincorporated county areas, and spans 660 square miles. The JOS boundaries extend from the San Gabriel Mountain foothills to the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro Bay, and from San Bernardino and Orange Counties to the cities of Glendale and Los Angeles and to Santa Monica Bay. Wastewater from homes and businesses flows into local sewers, and through a 1,230-mile network of larger trunk sewers to seven wastewater treatment plants with a combined permitted capacity of 593 million gallons per day (MGD). Approximately one-third of the wastewater in the JOS system is treated at six water reclamation plants (WRPs), which produce high-quality recycled water that is beneficially reused or discharged to rivers and streams. The remaining two-thirds, which includes saltier industrial wastewater, is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson, California. The solids removed at the WRPs during the treatment process are returned to the trunk sewers to be processed at the JWPCP. From the JWPCP, the treated water is transported by two six-mile-long tunnels to Royal Palms Beach where the effluent exits four ocean outfalls which consist of seafloor pipelines that extend up to 1.5 miles offshore and reach a depth of 200 feet. The Sanitation Districts prepared the Clearwater Program Master Facilities Plan (MFP) to meet the wastewater management needs of the JOS through the year 2050. New facilities and upgrades that are required to accommodate projected future conditions within the JOS service area, including aging infrastructure, anticipated growth within the system, emerging demands for recycled water, and potential new regulatory requirements, were evaluated in the MFP. Program and project level improvements were combined into six alternatives that are assessed in this draft EIS. Program-wide recommendations include: the expansion of the San Jose Creek WRP from its current capacity of 100 MGD to 125 MGD; process optimization upgrades at the San Jose Creek, Pomona, Los Coyotes, and Long Beach WRPs; and increased capacity along approximately 33 miles of trunk sewers. To address immediate need, Alternatives 1 through 4 propose a new or a modified ocean discharge system. Under Alternative 5 (No Project Alternative), there would be neither federal nor local approval of the project or program and the Sanitation Districts would continue to expand, upgrade, and operate the JOS in accordance with the 2010 JOS MFP (prepared in 1995). Alternative 6 (No-Federal-Action Alternative) consists of the activities that the Sanitation Districts would perform without the issuance of permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under Alternative 4, which is the recommended alternative, project elements for the ocean discharge system would include: a working shaft site at the JWPCP; an onshore tunnel between the JWPCP and the existing ocean outfall manifold structure at Royal Palms Beach near White Point; an exit shaft site at Royal Palms Beach; and the rehabilitation of the existing ocean outfalls. The total capital cost for the modified ocean discharge system under the recommended alternative is estimated at $550 million in 2011 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program implementation would ensure continued regulatory compliance and adequate JOS wastewater system capacity and reliability through the year 2050. Management systems would support increased beneficial use of recycled water and biosolids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Without the project, the potential for emergency discharges and/or sewer overflows into various water courses would increase. Project construction would result in significant impacts on aesthetic resources, peak day air quality, and paleontological resources. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations due to work at the JWPCP East shaft site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120028, Executive Summary--53 pages, Draft EIS--1,831 pages, Appendices-1,566 pages, Master Facilities Plan--317 pages, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 24 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Public Health KW - Recycling KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Sewers KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742748?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 30] T2 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1012742742; 15226-8_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a regional interconnected system of wastewater and treatment facilities known as the Joint Outfall System (JOS) in Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Seventeen of the 23 independent special districts that comprise the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) participate in a cooperative agreement to operate and maintain the JOS which serves five million people in 73 cities and unincorporated county areas, and spans 660 square miles. The JOS boundaries extend from the San Gabriel Mountain foothills to the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro Bay, and from San Bernardino and Orange Counties to the cities of Glendale and Los Angeles and to Santa Monica Bay. Wastewater from homes and businesses flows into local sewers, and through a 1,230-mile network of larger trunk sewers to seven wastewater treatment plants with a combined permitted capacity of 593 million gallons per day (MGD). Approximately one-third of the wastewater in the JOS system is treated at six water reclamation plants (WRPs), which produce high-quality recycled water that is beneficially reused or discharged to rivers and streams. The remaining two-thirds, which includes saltier industrial wastewater, is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson, California. The solids removed at the WRPs during the treatment process are returned to the trunk sewers to be processed at the JWPCP. From the JWPCP, the treated water is transported by two six-mile-long tunnels to Royal Palms Beach where the effluent exits four ocean outfalls which consist of seafloor pipelines that extend up to 1.5 miles offshore and reach a depth of 200 feet. The Sanitation Districts prepared the Clearwater Program Master Facilities Plan (MFP) to meet the wastewater management needs of the JOS through the year 2050. New facilities and upgrades that are required to accommodate projected future conditions within the JOS service area, including aging infrastructure, anticipated growth within the system, emerging demands for recycled water, and potential new regulatory requirements, were evaluated in the MFP. Program and project level improvements were combined into six alternatives that are assessed in this draft EIS. Program-wide recommendations include: the expansion of the San Jose Creek WRP from its current capacity of 100 MGD to 125 MGD; process optimization upgrades at the San Jose Creek, Pomona, Los Coyotes, and Long Beach WRPs; and increased capacity along approximately 33 miles of trunk sewers. To address immediate need, Alternatives 1 through 4 propose a new or a modified ocean discharge system. Under Alternative 5 (No Project Alternative), there would be neither federal nor local approval of the project or program and the Sanitation Districts would continue to expand, upgrade, and operate the JOS in accordance with the 2010 JOS MFP (prepared in 1995). Alternative 6 (No-Federal-Action Alternative) consists of the activities that the Sanitation Districts would perform without the issuance of permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under Alternative 4, which is the recommended alternative, project elements for the ocean discharge system would include: a working shaft site at the JWPCP; an onshore tunnel between the JWPCP and the existing ocean outfall manifold structure at Royal Palms Beach near White Point; an exit shaft site at Royal Palms Beach; and the rehabilitation of the existing ocean outfalls. The total capital cost for the modified ocean discharge system under the recommended alternative is estimated at $550 million in 2011 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program implementation would ensure continued regulatory compliance and adequate JOS wastewater system capacity and reliability through the year 2050. Management systems would support increased beneficial use of recycled water and biosolids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Without the project, the potential for emergency discharges and/or sewer overflows into various water courses would increase. Project construction would result in significant impacts on aesthetic resources, peak day air quality, and paleontological resources. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations due to work at the JWPCP East shaft site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120028, Executive Summary--53 pages, Draft EIS--1,831 pages, Appendices-1,566 pages, Master Facilities Plan--317 pages, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Public Health KW - Recycling KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Sewers KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742742?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 23 of 30] T2 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1012742732; 15226-8_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a regional interconnected system of wastewater and treatment facilities known as the Joint Outfall System (JOS) in Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Seventeen of the 23 independent special districts that comprise the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) participate in a cooperative agreement to operate and maintain the JOS which serves five million people in 73 cities and unincorporated county areas, and spans 660 square miles. The JOS boundaries extend from the San Gabriel Mountain foothills to the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro Bay, and from San Bernardino and Orange Counties to the cities of Glendale and Los Angeles and to Santa Monica Bay. Wastewater from homes and businesses flows into local sewers, and through a 1,230-mile network of larger trunk sewers to seven wastewater treatment plants with a combined permitted capacity of 593 million gallons per day (MGD). Approximately one-third of the wastewater in the JOS system is treated at six water reclamation plants (WRPs), which produce high-quality recycled water that is beneficially reused or discharged to rivers and streams. The remaining two-thirds, which includes saltier industrial wastewater, is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson, California. The solids removed at the WRPs during the treatment process are returned to the trunk sewers to be processed at the JWPCP. From the JWPCP, the treated water is transported by two six-mile-long tunnels to Royal Palms Beach where the effluent exits four ocean outfalls which consist of seafloor pipelines that extend up to 1.5 miles offshore and reach a depth of 200 feet. The Sanitation Districts prepared the Clearwater Program Master Facilities Plan (MFP) to meet the wastewater management needs of the JOS through the year 2050. New facilities and upgrades that are required to accommodate projected future conditions within the JOS service area, including aging infrastructure, anticipated growth within the system, emerging demands for recycled water, and potential new regulatory requirements, were evaluated in the MFP. Program and project level improvements were combined into six alternatives that are assessed in this draft EIS. Program-wide recommendations include: the expansion of the San Jose Creek WRP from its current capacity of 100 MGD to 125 MGD; process optimization upgrades at the San Jose Creek, Pomona, Los Coyotes, and Long Beach WRPs; and increased capacity along approximately 33 miles of trunk sewers. To address immediate need, Alternatives 1 through 4 propose a new or a modified ocean discharge system. Under Alternative 5 (No Project Alternative), there would be neither federal nor local approval of the project or program and the Sanitation Districts would continue to expand, upgrade, and operate the JOS in accordance with the 2010 JOS MFP (prepared in 1995). Alternative 6 (No-Federal-Action Alternative) consists of the activities that the Sanitation Districts would perform without the issuance of permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under Alternative 4, which is the recommended alternative, project elements for the ocean discharge system would include: a working shaft site at the JWPCP; an onshore tunnel between the JWPCP and the existing ocean outfall manifold structure at Royal Palms Beach near White Point; an exit shaft site at Royal Palms Beach; and the rehabilitation of the existing ocean outfalls. The total capital cost for the modified ocean discharge system under the recommended alternative is estimated at $550 million in 2011 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program implementation would ensure continued regulatory compliance and adequate JOS wastewater system capacity and reliability through the year 2050. Management systems would support increased beneficial use of recycled water and biosolids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Without the project, the potential for emergency discharges and/or sewer overflows into various water courses would increase. Project construction would result in significant impacts on aesthetic resources, peak day air quality, and paleontological resources. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations due to work at the JWPCP East shaft site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120028, Executive Summary--53 pages, Draft EIS--1,831 pages, Appendices-1,566 pages, Master Facilities Plan--317 pages, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 23 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Public Health KW - Recycling KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Sewers KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742732?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 22 of 30] T2 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1012742717; 15226-8_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a regional interconnected system of wastewater and treatment facilities known as the Joint Outfall System (JOS) in Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Seventeen of the 23 independent special districts that comprise the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) participate in a cooperative agreement to operate and maintain the JOS which serves five million people in 73 cities and unincorporated county areas, and spans 660 square miles. The JOS boundaries extend from the San Gabriel Mountain foothills to the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro Bay, and from San Bernardino and Orange Counties to the cities of Glendale and Los Angeles and to Santa Monica Bay. Wastewater from homes and businesses flows into local sewers, and through a 1,230-mile network of larger trunk sewers to seven wastewater treatment plants with a combined permitted capacity of 593 million gallons per day (MGD). Approximately one-third of the wastewater in the JOS system is treated at six water reclamation plants (WRPs), which produce high-quality recycled water that is beneficially reused or discharged to rivers and streams. The remaining two-thirds, which includes saltier industrial wastewater, is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson, California. The solids removed at the WRPs during the treatment process are returned to the trunk sewers to be processed at the JWPCP. From the JWPCP, the treated water is transported by two six-mile-long tunnels to Royal Palms Beach where the effluent exits four ocean outfalls which consist of seafloor pipelines that extend up to 1.5 miles offshore and reach a depth of 200 feet. The Sanitation Districts prepared the Clearwater Program Master Facilities Plan (MFP) to meet the wastewater management needs of the JOS through the year 2050. New facilities and upgrades that are required to accommodate projected future conditions within the JOS service area, including aging infrastructure, anticipated growth within the system, emerging demands for recycled water, and potential new regulatory requirements, were evaluated in the MFP. Program and project level improvements were combined into six alternatives that are assessed in this draft EIS. Program-wide recommendations include: the expansion of the San Jose Creek WRP from its current capacity of 100 MGD to 125 MGD; process optimization upgrades at the San Jose Creek, Pomona, Los Coyotes, and Long Beach WRPs; and increased capacity along approximately 33 miles of trunk sewers. To address immediate need, Alternatives 1 through 4 propose a new or a modified ocean discharge system. Under Alternative 5 (No Project Alternative), there would be neither federal nor local approval of the project or program and the Sanitation Districts would continue to expand, upgrade, and operate the JOS in accordance with the 2010 JOS MFP (prepared in 1995). Alternative 6 (No-Federal-Action Alternative) consists of the activities that the Sanitation Districts would perform without the issuance of permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under Alternative 4, which is the recommended alternative, project elements for the ocean discharge system would include: a working shaft site at the JWPCP; an onshore tunnel between the JWPCP and the existing ocean outfall manifold structure at Royal Palms Beach near White Point; an exit shaft site at Royal Palms Beach; and the rehabilitation of the existing ocean outfalls. The total capital cost for the modified ocean discharge system under the recommended alternative is estimated at $550 million in 2011 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program implementation would ensure continued regulatory compliance and adequate JOS wastewater system capacity and reliability through the year 2050. Management systems would support increased beneficial use of recycled water and biosolids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Without the project, the potential for emergency discharges and/or sewer overflows into various water courses would increase. Project construction would result in significant impacts on aesthetic resources, peak day air quality, and paleontological resources. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations due to work at the JWPCP East shaft site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120028, Executive Summary--53 pages, Draft EIS--1,831 pages, Appendices-1,566 pages, Master Facilities Plan--317 pages, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 22 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Public Health KW - Recycling KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Sewers KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742717?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 21 of 30] T2 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1012742702; 15226-8_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a regional interconnected system of wastewater and treatment facilities known as the Joint Outfall System (JOS) in Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Seventeen of the 23 independent special districts that comprise the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) participate in a cooperative agreement to operate and maintain the JOS which serves five million people in 73 cities and unincorporated county areas, and spans 660 square miles. The JOS boundaries extend from the San Gabriel Mountain foothills to the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro Bay, and from San Bernardino and Orange Counties to the cities of Glendale and Los Angeles and to Santa Monica Bay. Wastewater from homes and businesses flows into local sewers, and through a 1,230-mile network of larger trunk sewers to seven wastewater treatment plants with a combined permitted capacity of 593 million gallons per day (MGD). Approximately one-third of the wastewater in the JOS system is treated at six water reclamation plants (WRPs), which produce high-quality recycled water that is beneficially reused or discharged to rivers and streams. The remaining two-thirds, which includes saltier industrial wastewater, is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson, California. The solids removed at the WRPs during the treatment process are returned to the trunk sewers to be processed at the JWPCP. From the JWPCP, the treated water is transported by two six-mile-long tunnels to Royal Palms Beach where the effluent exits four ocean outfalls which consist of seafloor pipelines that extend up to 1.5 miles offshore and reach a depth of 200 feet. The Sanitation Districts prepared the Clearwater Program Master Facilities Plan (MFP) to meet the wastewater management needs of the JOS through the year 2050. New facilities and upgrades that are required to accommodate projected future conditions within the JOS service area, including aging infrastructure, anticipated growth within the system, emerging demands for recycled water, and potential new regulatory requirements, were evaluated in the MFP. Program and project level improvements were combined into six alternatives that are assessed in this draft EIS. Program-wide recommendations include: the expansion of the San Jose Creek WRP from its current capacity of 100 MGD to 125 MGD; process optimization upgrades at the San Jose Creek, Pomona, Los Coyotes, and Long Beach WRPs; and increased capacity along approximately 33 miles of trunk sewers. To address immediate need, Alternatives 1 through 4 propose a new or a modified ocean discharge system. Under Alternative 5 (No Project Alternative), there would be neither federal nor local approval of the project or program and the Sanitation Districts would continue to expand, upgrade, and operate the JOS in accordance with the 2010 JOS MFP (prepared in 1995). Alternative 6 (No-Federal-Action Alternative) consists of the activities that the Sanitation Districts would perform without the issuance of permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under Alternative 4, which is the recommended alternative, project elements for the ocean discharge system would include: a working shaft site at the JWPCP; an onshore tunnel between the JWPCP and the existing ocean outfall manifold structure at Royal Palms Beach near White Point; an exit shaft site at Royal Palms Beach; and the rehabilitation of the existing ocean outfalls. The total capital cost for the modified ocean discharge system under the recommended alternative is estimated at $550 million in 2011 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program implementation would ensure continued regulatory compliance and adequate JOS wastewater system capacity and reliability through the year 2050. Management systems would support increased beneficial use of recycled water and biosolids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Without the project, the potential for emergency discharges and/or sewer overflows into various water courses would increase. Project construction would result in significant impacts on aesthetic resources, peak day air quality, and paleontological resources. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations due to work at the JWPCP East shaft site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120028, Executive Summary--53 pages, Draft EIS--1,831 pages, Appendices-1,566 pages, Master Facilities Plan--317 pages, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 21 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Public Health KW - Recycling KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Sewers KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742702?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HELENA BYPASS PROJECT, FROM COUNTY ROAD 52 IN HELENA TO STATE ROUTE 261 NEAR BEARDEN ROAD, SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA (PROJECT NO. ST-059-261-004). [Part 1 of 3] T2 - HELENA BYPASS PROJECT, FROM COUNTY ROAD 52 IN HELENA TO STATE ROUTE 261 NEAR BEARDEN ROAD, SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA (PROJECT NO. ST-059-261-004). AN - 1012742693; 15228-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a bypass of the City of Helena, Alabama, from County Road 52 (CR-52) to State Route 261 (SR-261), in northwestern Shelby County is proposed. Shelby County is home to many suburban communities of metropolitan Birmingham and is the fastest growing county in the state. The historic district of Old Towne Helena currently experiences congestion problems, especially during the morning and evening rush hours. There are two active railroads with at-grade crossings of SR-261 in the Old Towne area which regularly cause delays and congestion. The project would begin southwest of the downtown area on CR-52 approximately 6,600 feet west of the existing intersection of CR-52 and SR-261 and traverse northeasterly to a terminus with SR-261 near Bearden Road. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative I-A) would extend 3.7 miles, beginning as a four-lane divided section and proceeding along the northern portion of the study area for about two miles. At this point the alignment turns in an easterly direction and passes north of the Vulcan quarry site near SR-261. The alignment then turns northeasterly and transitions into a five-lane roadway for the final 1,500 feet to the terminus with SR-261. This alternative includes grade-separated crossings of the two railroads and a hydraulic structure which crosses Buck Creek. It also crosses two large power transmission lines operated by Alabama Power Company. A six-foot graded area would be provided to accommodate any future sidewalk along both sides of the proposed roadway. The total cost for the preferred alternative is estimated at $21.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide some relief for the existing congested road network and the proposed project would serve as the transportation backbone for Helena's ongoing development. Travel times would be improved for emergency services as well as for local and through traffic. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term traffic disruption, soil erosion and sedimentation, air quality reduction, noise increases, and utilities disruptions could occur during the estimated 30-month construction period. The preferred alternative would impact 2,280 linear feet of streams and 1.7 acres of wetlands. The bridge-crossing of Buck Creek would impact 2.6 acres of 100-year floodplain. Three receptor sites would be impacted by noise after construction is completed. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0507D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120030, 524 pages and maps, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742693?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HELENA+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+FROM+COUNTY+ROAD+52+IN+HELENA+TO+STATE+ROUTE+261+NEAR+BEARDEN+ROAD%2C+SHELBY+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28PROJECT+NO.+ST-059-261-004%29.&rft.title=HELENA+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+FROM+COUNTY+ROAD+52+IN+HELENA+TO+STATE+ROUTE+261+NEAR+BEARDEN+ROAD%2C+SHELBY+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28PROJECT+NO.+ST-059-261-004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 30] T2 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1012742470; 15226-8_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a regional interconnected system of wastewater and treatment facilities known as the Joint Outfall System (JOS) in Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Seventeen of the 23 independent special districts that comprise the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) participate in a cooperative agreement to operate and maintain the JOS which serves five million people in 73 cities and unincorporated county areas, and spans 660 square miles. The JOS boundaries extend from the San Gabriel Mountain foothills to the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro Bay, and from San Bernardino and Orange Counties to the cities of Glendale and Los Angeles and to Santa Monica Bay. Wastewater from homes and businesses flows into local sewers, and through a 1,230-mile network of larger trunk sewers to seven wastewater treatment plants with a combined permitted capacity of 593 million gallons per day (MGD). Approximately one-third of the wastewater in the JOS system is treated at six water reclamation plants (WRPs), which produce high-quality recycled water that is beneficially reused or discharged to rivers and streams. The remaining two-thirds, which includes saltier industrial wastewater, is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson, California. The solids removed at the WRPs during the treatment process are returned to the trunk sewers to be processed at the JWPCP. From the JWPCP, the treated water is transported by two six-mile-long tunnels to Royal Palms Beach where the effluent exits four ocean outfalls which consist of seafloor pipelines that extend up to 1.5 miles offshore and reach a depth of 200 feet. The Sanitation Districts prepared the Clearwater Program Master Facilities Plan (MFP) to meet the wastewater management needs of the JOS through the year 2050. New facilities and upgrades that are required to accommodate projected future conditions within the JOS service area, including aging infrastructure, anticipated growth within the system, emerging demands for recycled water, and potential new regulatory requirements, were evaluated in the MFP. Program and project level improvements were combined into six alternatives that are assessed in this draft EIS. Program-wide recommendations include: the expansion of the San Jose Creek WRP from its current capacity of 100 MGD to 125 MGD; process optimization upgrades at the San Jose Creek, Pomona, Los Coyotes, and Long Beach WRPs; and increased capacity along approximately 33 miles of trunk sewers. To address immediate need, Alternatives 1 through 4 propose a new or a modified ocean discharge system. Under Alternative 5 (No Project Alternative), there would be neither federal nor local approval of the project or program and the Sanitation Districts would continue to expand, upgrade, and operate the JOS in accordance with the 2010 JOS MFP (prepared in 1995). Alternative 6 (No-Federal-Action Alternative) consists of the activities that the Sanitation Districts would perform without the issuance of permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under Alternative 4, which is the recommended alternative, project elements for the ocean discharge system would include: a working shaft site at the JWPCP; an onshore tunnel between the JWPCP and the existing ocean outfall manifold structure at Royal Palms Beach near White Point; an exit shaft site at Royal Palms Beach; and the rehabilitation of the existing ocean outfalls. The total capital cost for the modified ocean discharge system under the recommended alternative is estimated at $550 million in 2011 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program implementation would ensure continued regulatory compliance and adequate JOS wastewater system capacity and reliability through the year 2050. Management systems would support increased beneficial use of recycled water and biosolids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Without the project, the potential for emergency discharges and/or sewer overflows into various water courses would increase. Project construction would result in significant impacts on aesthetic resources, peak day air quality, and paleontological resources. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations due to work at the JWPCP East shaft site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120028, Executive Summary--53 pages, Draft EIS--1,831 pages, Appendices-1,566 pages, Master Facilities Plan--317 pages, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 14 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Public Health KW - Recycling KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Sewers KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742470?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 30] T2 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1012742448; 15226-8_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a regional interconnected system of wastewater and treatment facilities known as the Joint Outfall System (JOS) in Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Seventeen of the 23 independent special districts that comprise the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) participate in a cooperative agreement to operate and maintain the JOS which serves five million people in 73 cities and unincorporated county areas, and spans 660 square miles. The JOS boundaries extend from the San Gabriel Mountain foothills to the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro Bay, and from San Bernardino and Orange Counties to the cities of Glendale and Los Angeles and to Santa Monica Bay. Wastewater from homes and businesses flows into local sewers, and through a 1,230-mile network of larger trunk sewers to seven wastewater treatment plants with a combined permitted capacity of 593 million gallons per day (MGD). Approximately one-third of the wastewater in the JOS system is treated at six water reclamation plants (WRPs), which produce high-quality recycled water that is beneficially reused or discharged to rivers and streams. The remaining two-thirds, which includes saltier industrial wastewater, is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson, California. The solids removed at the WRPs during the treatment process are returned to the trunk sewers to be processed at the JWPCP. From the JWPCP, the treated water is transported by two six-mile-long tunnels to Royal Palms Beach where the effluent exits four ocean outfalls which consist of seafloor pipelines that extend up to 1.5 miles offshore and reach a depth of 200 feet. The Sanitation Districts prepared the Clearwater Program Master Facilities Plan (MFP) to meet the wastewater management needs of the JOS through the year 2050. New facilities and upgrades that are required to accommodate projected future conditions within the JOS service area, including aging infrastructure, anticipated growth within the system, emerging demands for recycled water, and potential new regulatory requirements, were evaluated in the MFP. Program and project level improvements were combined into six alternatives that are assessed in this draft EIS. Program-wide recommendations include: the expansion of the San Jose Creek WRP from its current capacity of 100 MGD to 125 MGD; process optimization upgrades at the San Jose Creek, Pomona, Los Coyotes, and Long Beach WRPs; and increased capacity along approximately 33 miles of trunk sewers. To address immediate need, Alternatives 1 through 4 propose a new or a modified ocean discharge system. Under Alternative 5 (No Project Alternative), there would be neither federal nor local approval of the project or program and the Sanitation Districts would continue to expand, upgrade, and operate the JOS in accordance with the 2010 JOS MFP (prepared in 1995). Alternative 6 (No-Federal-Action Alternative) consists of the activities that the Sanitation Districts would perform without the issuance of permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under Alternative 4, which is the recommended alternative, project elements for the ocean discharge system would include: a working shaft site at the JWPCP; an onshore tunnel between the JWPCP and the existing ocean outfall manifold structure at Royal Palms Beach near White Point; an exit shaft site at Royal Palms Beach; and the rehabilitation of the existing ocean outfalls. The total capital cost for the modified ocean discharge system under the recommended alternative is estimated at $550 million in 2011 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program implementation would ensure continued regulatory compliance and adequate JOS wastewater system capacity and reliability through the year 2050. Management systems would support increased beneficial use of recycled water and biosolids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Without the project, the potential for emergency discharges and/or sewer overflows into various water courses would increase. Project construction would result in significant impacts on aesthetic resources, peak day air quality, and paleontological resources. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations due to work at the JWPCP East shaft site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120028, Executive Summary--53 pages, Draft EIS--1,831 pages, Appendices-1,566 pages, Master Facilities Plan--317 pages, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Public Health KW - Recycling KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Sewers KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742448?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 30] T2 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1012742432; 15226-8_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a regional interconnected system of wastewater and treatment facilities known as the Joint Outfall System (JOS) in Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Seventeen of the 23 independent special districts that comprise the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) participate in a cooperative agreement to operate and maintain the JOS which serves five million people in 73 cities and unincorporated county areas, and spans 660 square miles. The JOS boundaries extend from the San Gabriel Mountain foothills to the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro Bay, and from San Bernardino and Orange Counties to the cities of Glendale and Los Angeles and to Santa Monica Bay. Wastewater from homes and businesses flows into local sewers, and through a 1,230-mile network of larger trunk sewers to seven wastewater treatment plants with a combined permitted capacity of 593 million gallons per day (MGD). Approximately one-third of the wastewater in the JOS system is treated at six water reclamation plants (WRPs), which produce high-quality recycled water that is beneficially reused or discharged to rivers and streams. The remaining two-thirds, which includes saltier industrial wastewater, is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson, California. The solids removed at the WRPs during the treatment process are returned to the trunk sewers to be processed at the JWPCP. From the JWPCP, the treated water is transported by two six-mile-long tunnels to Royal Palms Beach where the effluent exits four ocean outfalls which consist of seafloor pipelines that extend up to 1.5 miles offshore and reach a depth of 200 feet. The Sanitation Districts prepared the Clearwater Program Master Facilities Plan (MFP) to meet the wastewater management needs of the JOS through the year 2050. New facilities and upgrades that are required to accommodate projected future conditions within the JOS service area, including aging infrastructure, anticipated growth within the system, emerging demands for recycled water, and potential new regulatory requirements, were evaluated in the MFP. Program and project level improvements were combined into six alternatives that are assessed in this draft EIS. Program-wide recommendations include: the expansion of the San Jose Creek WRP from its current capacity of 100 MGD to 125 MGD; process optimization upgrades at the San Jose Creek, Pomona, Los Coyotes, and Long Beach WRPs; and increased capacity along approximately 33 miles of trunk sewers. To address immediate need, Alternatives 1 through 4 propose a new or a modified ocean discharge system. Under Alternative 5 (No Project Alternative), there would be neither federal nor local approval of the project or program and the Sanitation Districts would continue to expand, upgrade, and operate the JOS in accordance with the 2010 JOS MFP (prepared in 1995). Alternative 6 (No-Federal-Action Alternative) consists of the activities that the Sanitation Districts would perform without the issuance of permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under Alternative 4, which is the recommended alternative, project elements for the ocean discharge system would include: a working shaft site at the JWPCP; an onshore tunnel between the JWPCP and the existing ocean outfall manifold structure at Royal Palms Beach near White Point; an exit shaft site at Royal Palms Beach; and the rehabilitation of the existing ocean outfalls. The total capital cost for the modified ocean discharge system under the recommended alternative is estimated at $550 million in 2011 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program implementation would ensure continued regulatory compliance and adequate JOS wastewater system capacity and reliability through the year 2050. Management systems would support increased beneficial use of recycled water and biosolids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Without the project, the potential for emergency discharges and/or sewer overflows into various water courses would increase. Project construction would result in significant impacts on aesthetic resources, peak day air quality, and paleontological resources. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations due to work at the JWPCP East shaft site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120028, Executive Summary--53 pages, Draft EIS--1,831 pages, Appendices-1,566 pages, Master Facilities Plan--317 pages, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Public Health KW - Recycling KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Sewers KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742432?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 30] T2 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1012742418; 15226-8_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a regional interconnected system of wastewater and treatment facilities known as the Joint Outfall System (JOS) in Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Seventeen of the 23 independent special districts that comprise the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) participate in a cooperative agreement to operate and maintain the JOS which serves five million people in 73 cities and unincorporated county areas, and spans 660 square miles. The JOS boundaries extend from the San Gabriel Mountain foothills to the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro Bay, and from San Bernardino and Orange Counties to the cities of Glendale and Los Angeles and to Santa Monica Bay. Wastewater from homes and businesses flows into local sewers, and through a 1,230-mile network of larger trunk sewers to seven wastewater treatment plants with a combined permitted capacity of 593 million gallons per day (MGD). Approximately one-third of the wastewater in the JOS system is treated at six water reclamation plants (WRPs), which produce high-quality recycled water that is beneficially reused or discharged to rivers and streams. The remaining two-thirds, which includes saltier industrial wastewater, is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson, California. The solids removed at the WRPs during the treatment process are returned to the trunk sewers to be processed at the JWPCP. From the JWPCP, the treated water is transported by two six-mile-long tunnels to Royal Palms Beach where the effluent exits four ocean outfalls which consist of seafloor pipelines that extend up to 1.5 miles offshore and reach a depth of 200 feet. The Sanitation Districts prepared the Clearwater Program Master Facilities Plan (MFP) to meet the wastewater management needs of the JOS through the year 2050. New facilities and upgrades that are required to accommodate projected future conditions within the JOS service area, including aging infrastructure, anticipated growth within the system, emerging demands for recycled water, and potential new regulatory requirements, were evaluated in the MFP. Program and project level improvements were combined into six alternatives that are assessed in this draft EIS. Program-wide recommendations include: the expansion of the San Jose Creek WRP from its current capacity of 100 MGD to 125 MGD; process optimization upgrades at the San Jose Creek, Pomona, Los Coyotes, and Long Beach WRPs; and increased capacity along approximately 33 miles of trunk sewers. To address immediate need, Alternatives 1 through 4 propose a new or a modified ocean discharge system. Under Alternative 5 (No Project Alternative), there would be neither federal nor local approval of the project or program and the Sanitation Districts would continue to expand, upgrade, and operate the JOS in accordance with the 2010 JOS MFP (prepared in 1995). Alternative 6 (No-Federal-Action Alternative) consists of the activities that the Sanitation Districts would perform without the issuance of permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under Alternative 4, which is the recommended alternative, project elements for the ocean discharge system would include: a working shaft site at the JWPCP; an onshore tunnel between the JWPCP and the existing ocean outfall manifold structure at Royal Palms Beach near White Point; an exit shaft site at Royal Palms Beach; and the rehabilitation of the existing ocean outfalls. The total capital cost for the modified ocean discharge system under the recommended alternative is estimated at $550 million in 2011 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program implementation would ensure continued regulatory compliance and adequate JOS wastewater system capacity and reliability through the year 2050. Management systems would support increased beneficial use of recycled water and biosolids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Without the project, the potential for emergency discharges and/or sewer overflows into various water courses would increase. Project construction would result in significant impacts on aesthetic resources, peak day air quality, and paleontological resources. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations due to work at the JWPCP East shaft site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120028, Executive Summary--53 pages, Draft EIS--1,831 pages, Appendices-1,566 pages, Master Facilities Plan--317 pages, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Public Health KW - Recycling KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Sewers KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742418?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 30] T2 - CLEARWATER PROGRAM, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1012742143; 15226-8_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a regional interconnected system of wastewater and treatment facilities known as the Joint Outfall System (JOS) in Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Seventeen of the 23 independent special districts that comprise the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) participate in a cooperative agreement to operate and maintain the JOS which serves five million people in 73 cities and unincorporated county areas, and spans 660 square miles. The JOS boundaries extend from the San Gabriel Mountain foothills to the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro Bay, and from San Bernardino and Orange Counties to the cities of Glendale and Los Angeles and to Santa Monica Bay. Wastewater from homes and businesses flows into local sewers, and through a 1,230-mile network of larger trunk sewers to seven wastewater treatment plants with a combined permitted capacity of 593 million gallons per day (MGD). Approximately one-third of the wastewater in the JOS system is treated at six water reclamation plants (WRPs), which produce high-quality recycled water that is beneficially reused or discharged to rivers and streams. The remaining two-thirds, which includes saltier industrial wastewater, is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson, California. The solids removed at the WRPs during the treatment process are returned to the trunk sewers to be processed at the JWPCP. From the JWPCP, the treated water is transported by two six-mile-long tunnels to Royal Palms Beach where the effluent exits four ocean outfalls which consist of seafloor pipelines that extend up to 1.5 miles offshore and reach a depth of 200 feet. The Sanitation Districts prepared the Clearwater Program Master Facilities Plan (MFP) to meet the wastewater management needs of the JOS through the year 2050. New facilities and upgrades that are required to accommodate projected future conditions within the JOS service area, including aging infrastructure, anticipated growth within the system, emerging demands for recycled water, and potential new regulatory requirements, were evaluated in the MFP. Program and project level improvements were combined into six alternatives that are assessed in this draft EIS. Program-wide recommendations include: the expansion of the San Jose Creek WRP from its current capacity of 100 MGD to 125 MGD; process optimization upgrades at the San Jose Creek, Pomona, Los Coyotes, and Long Beach WRPs; and increased capacity along approximately 33 miles of trunk sewers. To address immediate need, Alternatives 1 through 4 propose a new or a modified ocean discharge system. Under Alternative 5 (No Project Alternative), there would be neither federal nor local approval of the project or program and the Sanitation Districts would continue to expand, upgrade, and operate the JOS in accordance with the 2010 JOS MFP (prepared in 1995). Alternative 6 (No-Federal-Action Alternative) consists of the activities that the Sanitation Districts would perform without the issuance of permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under Alternative 4, which is the recommended alternative, project elements for the ocean discharge system would include: a working shaft site at the JWPCP; an onshore tunnel between the JWPCP and the existing ocean outfall manifold structure at Royal Palms Beach near White Point; an exit shaft site at Royal Palms Beach; and the rehabilitation of the existing ocean outfalls. The total capital cost for the modified ocean discharge system under the recommended alternative is estimated at $550 million in 2011 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program implementation would ensure continued regulatory compliance and adequate JOS wastewater system capacity and reliability through the year 2050. Management systems would support increased beneficial use of recycled water and biosolids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Without the project, the potential for emergency discharges and/or sewer overflows into various water courses would increase. Project construction would result in significant impacts on aesthetic resources, peak day air quality, and paleontological resources. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations due to work at the JWPCP East shaft site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120028, Executive Summary--53 pages, Draft EIS--1,831 pages, Appendices-1,566 pages, Master Facilities Plan--317 pages, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Public Health KW - Recycling KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Sewers KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742143?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLEARWATER+PROGRAM%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HELENA BYPASS PROJECT, FROM COUNTY ROAD 52 IN HELENA TO STATE ROUTE 261 NEAR BEARDEN ROAD, SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA (PROJECT NO. ST-059-261-004). AN - 1008976926; 15228 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a bypass of the City of Helena, Alabama, from County Road 52 (CR-52) to State Route 261 (SR-261), in northwestern Shelby County is proposed. Shelby County is home to many suburban communities of metropolitan Birmingham and is the fastest growing county in the state. The historic district of Old Towne Helena currently experiences congestion problems, especially during the morning and evening rush hours. There are two active railroads with at-grade crossings of SR-261 in the Old Towne area which regularly cause delays and congestion. The project would begin southwest of the downtown area on CR-52 approximately 6,600 feet west of the existing intersection of CR-52 and SR-261 and traverse northeasterly to a terminus with SR-261 near Bearden Road. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative I-A) would extend 3.7 miles, beginning as a four-lane divided section and proceeding along the northern portion of the study area for about two miles. At this point the alignment turns in an easterly direction and passes north of the Vulcan quarry site near SR-261. The alignment then turns northeasterly and transitions into a five-lane roadway for the final 1,500 feet to the terminus with SR-261. This alternative includes grade-separated crossings of the two railroads and a hydraulic structure which crosses Buck Creek. It also crosses two large power transmission lines operated by Alabama Power Company. A six-foot graded area would be provided to accommodate any future sidewalk along both sides of the proposed roadway. The total cost for the preferred alternative is estimated at $21.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide some relief for the existing congested road network and the proposed project would serve as the transportation backbone for Helena's ongoing development. Travel times would be improved for emergency services as well as for local and through traffic. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term traffic disruption, soil erosion and sedimentation, air quality reduction, noise increases, and utilities disruptions could occur during the estimated 30-month construction period. The preferred alternative would impact 2,280 linear feet of streams and 1.7 acres of wetlands. The bridge-crossing of Buck Creek would impact 2.6 acres of 100-year floodplain. Three receptor sites would be impacted by noise after construction is completed. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0507D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120030, 524 pages and maps, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1008976926?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HELENA+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+FROM+COUNTY+ROAD+52+IN+HELENA+TO+STATE+ROUTE+261+NEAR+BEARDEN+ROAD%2C+SHELBY+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28PROJECT+NO.+ST-059-261-004%29.&rft.title=HELENA+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+FROM+COUNTY+ROAD+52+IN+HELENA+TO+STATE+ROUTE+261+NEAR+BEARDEN+ROAD%2C+SHELBY+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28PROJECT+NO.+ST-059-261-004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-24 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID-CURRITUCK BRIDGE STUDY, CURRITUCK AND DARE COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 1008976856; 15227 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements in the Currituck Sound area, with focus on the consideration of a new Mid-Currituck Bridge from the mainland to the Outer Banks, Currituck and Dare counties, North Carolina, are proposed. The project area encompasses US 158 between its intersection with NC 168 and its intersection with NC 12, and NC 12 from its intersection with US 158 north to where it terminates in the community of Corolla. Six alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. The preferred alternative, known as MCB4/C1 with Option A, would include an interchange with US 158 on the mainland, a toll plaza at US 158, a bridge across Maple Swamp, a bridge across Currituck Sound, and some widening of NC 12 on the Outer Banks. Tolls on the Mid-Currituck Bridge would be collected by using electronic toll collection, cash, and credit card. Several measures to reduce hurricane evacuation times are incorporated, including the ability to reverse the center lane on US 158 between the Mid-Currituck Bridge interchange and NC 168, and adding 1,600 feet of a new third outbound lane on the Outer Banks to the west of the NC 12/US 158 intersection to provide additional road capacity during a hurricane evacuation. Additional design refinements include: a median acceleration lane at Waterlily Road; concentration of four-lane widening along NC 12 at the bridge terminus, the commercial area surrounding Albacore Street, and Currituck Clubhouse Drive; construction of roundabouts on NC 12 at the bridge landing and Currituck Clubhouse Drive; and provision of marked pedestrian crossings along NC 12 where it would be widened. Preliminary cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $502 million to $594 million. Construction is expected to begin in the fourth quarter of 2012 and the facility is expected to open to traffic in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed bridge would reduce travel time and congestion, as well as provide an alternative hurricane evacuation route for the northern Outer Banks. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would increase turbidity in waters of Currituck Sound and the bridge would introduce a new source of pollution via bridge runoff. The preferred alternative would require filling 7.9 acres of wetlands and relocation of six residences, three businesses, and 20 gravesites. The bridge would shade 27.8 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation and fish habitat and bridge features would affect views of Currituck Sound. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0154D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 120029, Final EIS--294 pages, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, February 10, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-10-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1008976856?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID-CURRITUCK+BRIDGE+STUDY%2C+CURRITUCK+AND+DARE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MID-CURRITUCK+BRIDGE+STUDY%2C+CURRITUCK+AND+DARE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-24 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Engineering for Climate Change Adaptation at the US Army Corps of Engineers: Policy, Plans, and Projects T2 - 2012 Carbon Management Technology Conference AN - 1313056070; 6159619 JF - 2012 Carbon Management Technology Conference AU - Dalton, J AU - DeLoach, S AU - Arnold, J AU - White, K Y1 - 2012/02/07/ PY - 2012 DA - 2012 Feb 07 KW - Climatic changes KW - Adaptability KW - Adaptations KW - Policies UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1313056070?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2012+Carbon+Management+Technology+Conference&rft.atitle=Engineering+for+Climate+Change+Adaptation+at+the+US+Army+Corps+of+Engineers%3A+Policy%2C+Plans%2C+and+Projects&rft.au=Dalton%2C+J%3BDeLoach%2C+S%3BArnold%2C+J%3BWhite%2C+K&rft.aulast=Dalton&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2012-02-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2012+Carbon+Management+Technology+Conference&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.carbonmgmt.org/pages/schedule/tech%20program/index.php LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 14 RECONSTRUCTION FROM FRONT STREET IN NEW ULM TO NICOLLET COUNTY ROAD 6 IN NORTH MANKATO, BROWN AND NICOLLET COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - US 14 RECONSTRUCTION FROM FRONT STREET IN NEW ULM TO NICOLLET COUNTY ROAD 6 IN NORTH MANKATO, BROWN AND NICOLLET COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 1012742683; 15218-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The widening and reconstruction of approximately 22.5 miles of US Highway 14 (US 14) from Front Street in New Ulm, Minnesota to Nicollet County Road (CR) 6 near Mankato, Minnesota are proposed. The study corridor is located about 70 miles south-southwest of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area in Brown and Nicollet counties and includes the cities of Courtland and Nicollet. The highway section is the only part of the designated US 14 interregional corridor not already upgraded or approved for upgrading to a four-lane highway. The proposed project would upgrade the existing highway from a two- to four-lane divided expressway, with access controlled via interchanges, two-way stop intersections, and/or roundabouts. The overall project has been divided into West and East Study sections with CR 12 on the west side of Courtland as the border between them. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative, three build alternatives for the West Study Section and four build alternatives for the East Study Section. All the build alternatives would include bypasses around Courtland and Nicollet. All alternatives in the West Study Section would include expansion of the US 14 Minnesota River Bridge from two to four lanes. The preferred Alternative W1 alignment follows existing US 14 from the Minnesota River to a point west of Courtland, where it leaves the existing highway to bypass Courtland to the north. The preferred Alternative E1 alignment would make the most use of existing US 14 from Courtland to Nicollet, and then bypass Nicollet to the south. The alternative would provide access to Nicollet at CR 23. Overall project construction will likely be carried out as a series of projects with logical end points over the course of many years. The US 14 Minnesota River Bridge at New Ulm is proposed to be replaced in 2018. No other projects along the corridor currently have funding identified in any specific timeframe. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would increase travel capacity and improve safety within the study corridor. The preferred alternative would avoid major bluff cuts in environmentally sensitive areas and save money by crossing Heymans Creek at a location that will not require long bridges. In the East Study Section, the preferred alternative would provide access to Nicollet in an area close to existing development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would encroach on 44 acres of Minnesota River floodplain and displace 21.9 acres of wetlands and 360 acres of prime farmland. Displacement of 13 residences and five businesses would be also be required and 6.2 acres of the Swan Lake Wildlife Management area would be affected. Nine historic sites would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0078D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 120020, 338 pages, February 3, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-07-01-D KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742683?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+14+RECONSTRUCTION+FROM+FRONT+STREET+IN+NEW+ULM+TO+NICOLLET+COUNTY+ROAD+6+IN+NORTH+MANKATO%2C+BROWN+AND+NICOLLET+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=US+14+RECONSTRUCTION+FROM+FRONT+STREET+IN+NEW+ULM+TO+NICOLLET+COUNTY+ROAD+6+IN+NORTH+MANKATO%2C+BROWN+AND+NICOLLET+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 3, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 14 RECONSTRUCTION FROM FRONT STREET IN NEW ULM TO NICOLLET COUNTY ROAD 6 IN NORTH MANKATO, BROWN AND NICOLLET COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 1008976931; 15218 AB - PURPOSE: The widening and reconstruction of approximately 22.5 miles of US Highway 14 (US 14) from Front Street in New Ulm, Minnesota to Nicollet County Road (CR) 6 near Mankato, Minnesota are proposed. The study corridor is located about 70 miles south-southwest of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area in Brown and Nicollet counties and includes the cities of Courtland and Nicollet. The highway section is the only part of the designated US 14 interregional corridor not already upgraded or approved for upgrading to a four-lane highway. The proposed project would upgrade the existing highway from a two- to four-lane divided expressway, with access controlled via interchanges, two-way stop intersections, and/or roundabouts. The overall project has been divided into West and East Study sections with CR 12 on the west side of Courtland as the border between them. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative, three build alternatives for the West Study Section and four build alternatives for the East Study Section. All the build alternatives would include bypasses around Courtland and Nicollet. All alternatives in the West Study Section would include expansion of the US 14 Minnesota River Bridge from two to four lanes. The preferred Alternative W1 alignment follows existing US 14 from the Minnesota River to a point west of Courtland, where it leaves the existing highway to bypass Courtland to the north. The preferred Alternative E1 alignment would make the most use of existing US 14 from Courtland to Nicollet, and then bypass Nicollet to the south. The alternative would provide access to Nicollet at CR 23. Overall project construction will likely be carried out as a series of projects with logical end points over the course of many years. The US 14 Minnesota River Bridge at New Ulm is proposed to be replaced in 2018. No other projects along the corridor currently have funding identified in any specific timeframe. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would increase travel capacity and improve safety within the study corridor. The preferred alternative would avoid major bluff cuts in environmentally sensitive areas and save money by crossing Heymans Creek at a location that will not require long bridges. In the East Study Section, the preferred alternative would provide access to Nicollet in an area close to existing development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would encroach on 44 acres of Minnesota River floodplain and displace 21.9 acres of wetlands and 360 acres of prime farmland. Displacement of 13 residences and five businesses would be also be required and 6.2 acres of the Swan Lake Wildlife Management area would be affected. Nine historic sites would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0078D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 120020, 338 pages, February 3, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-07-01-D KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1008976931?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+14+RECONSTRUCTION+FROM+FRONT+STREET+IN+NEW+ULM+TO+NICOLLET+COUNTY+ROAD+6+IN+NORTH+MANKATO%2C+BROWN+AND+NICOLLET+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=US+14+RECONSTRUCTION+FROM+FRONT+STREET+IN+NEW+ULM+TO+NICOLLET+COUNTY+ROAD+6+IN+NORTH+MANKATO%2C+BROWN+AND+NICOLLET+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 3, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-24 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Geophysical investigations of geology and structure at the Martis Creek Dam, Truckee, California AN - 1686062405; 2015-050273 AB - A recent evaluation of Martis Creek Dam highlighted the potential for dam failure due to either seepage or an earthquake on nearby faults. In 1972, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed this earthen dam, located within the Truckee Basin to the north of Lake Tahoe, CA for water storage and flood control. Past attempts to raise the level of the Martis Creek Reservoir to its design level have been aborted due to seepage at locations downstream, along the west dam abutment, and at the base of the spillway. In response to these concerns, the U.S. Geological Survey has undertaken a comprehensive suite of geophysical investigations aimed at understanding the interplay between geologic structure, seepage patterns, and reservoir and groundwater levels. This paper concerns the geologic structure surrounding Martis Creek Dam and emphasizes the importance of a regional-scale understanding to the interpretation of engineering-scale geophysical data. Our studies reveal a thick package of sedimentary deposits interbedded with Plio-Pleistocene volcanic flows; both the deposits and the flows are covered by glacial outwash. Magnetic field data, seismic tomography models, and seismic reflections are used to determine the distribution and chronology of the volcanic flows. Previous estimates of depth to basement (or the thickness of the interbedded deposits) was 100 m. Magnetotelluric soundings suggest that electrically resistive bedrock may be up to 2500 m deep. Both the Polaris Fault, identified outside of the study area using airborne LiDAR, and the previously unnamed Martis Creek Fault, have been mapped through the dam area using ground and airborne geophysics. Finally, as determined by direct-current resistivity imaging, time-domain electromagnetic sounding, and seismic refraction, the paleotopography of the interface between the sedimentary deposits and the overlying glacial outwash plays a principal role both in controlling groundwater flow and in the distribution of the observed seepage. JF - Journal of Applied Geophysics AU - Bedrosian, Paul A AU - Burton, Bethany L AU - Powers, Michael H AU - Minsley, Burke J AU - Phillips, Jeffrey D AU - Hunter, Lewis E Y1 - 2012/02// PY - 2012 DA - February 2012 SP - 7 EP - 20 PB - Elsevier, Amsterdam VL - 77 SN - 0926-9851, 0926-9851 KW - United States KW - tomography KW - engineering properties KW - paleorelief KW - data acquisition KW - data processing KW - hydrogeology KW - seepage KW - magnetic field KW - Nevada County California KW - California KW - earth dams KW - dams KW - electromagnetic methods KW - time domain analysis KW - gravity dams KW - faults KW - Placer County California KW - lava flows KW - paleochannels KW - geophysical methods KW - basement KW - Truckee Basin KW - resistivity KW - seismic methods KW - sounding KW - 30:Engineering geology KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1686062405?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Applied+Geophysics&rft.atitle=Geophysical+investigations+of+geology+and+structure+at+the+Martis+Creek+Dam%2C+Truckee%2C+California&rft.au=Bedrosian%2C+Paul+A%3BBurton%2C+Bethany+L%3BPowers%2C+Michael+H%3BMinsley%2C+Burke+J%3BPhillips%2C+Jeffrey+D%3BHunter%2C+Lewis+E&rft.aulast=Bedrosian&rft.aufirst=Paul&rft.date=2012-02-01&rft.volume=77&rft.issue=&rft.spage=7&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Applied+Geophysics&rft.issn=09269851&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.jappgeo.2011.11.002 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09269851 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2015, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2015-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 45 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sects., sketch maps N1 - Last updated - 2015-06-05 N1 - CODEN - GEOXAV N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - basement; California; dams; data acquisition; data processing; earth dams; electromagnetic methods; engineering properties; faults; geophysical methods; gravity dams; hydrogeology; lava flows; magnetic field; Nevada County California; paleochannels; paleorelief; Placer County California; resistivity; seepage; seismic methods; sounding; time domain analysis; tomography; Truckee Basin; United States DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2011.11.002 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - The role of submarine groundwater discharge in development of nearshore hypoxia AN - 1507174722; 2014-015562 JF - Ocean Sciences Meeting AU - Viso, R E AU - Peterson, R N AU - Libes, Susan M AU - Hutchins, P R AU - Peterson, L AU - Gregorcyk, K L AU - Lewis, B AU - McCoy, C A Y1 - 2012/02// PY - 2012 DA - February 2012 SP - 482 PB - American Geophysical Union (AGU), [varies] VL - 2012 KW - United States KW - water quality KW - South Carolina KW - isotopes KW - marine pollution KW - pollution KW - radon KW - nearshore environment KW - Rn-222 KW - ground water KW - nutrients KW - radioactive isotopes KW - biochemical oxygen demand KW - noble gases KW - marine environment KW - submarine environment KW - discharge KW - Long Bay KW - 02D:Isotope geochemistry KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1507174722?accountid=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=Ocean+Sciences+Meeting&rft.atitle=The+role+of+submarine+groundwater+discharge+in+development+of+nearshore+hypoxia&rft.au=Viso%2C+R+E%3BPeterson%2C+R+N%3BLibes%2C+Susan+M%3BHutchins%2C+P+R%3BPeterson%2C+L%3BGregorcyk%2C+K+L%3BLewis%2C+B%3BMcCoy%2C+C+A&rft.aulast=Viso&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2012-02-01&rft.volume=2012&rft.issue=&rft.spage=482&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Ocean+Sciences+Meeting&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - TOS, ASLO, AGU 2012 ocean sciences meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2014-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-03-14 N1 - CODEN - #07653 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - biochemical oxygen demand; discharge; ground water; isotopes; Long Bay; marine environment; marine pollution; nearshore environment; noble gases; nutrients; pollution; radioactive isotopes; radon; Rn-222; South Carolina; submarine environment; United States; water quality ER - TY - JOUR T1 - A prototype elevation data geoportal for U. S. ocean and coastal mapping AN - 1507174668; 2014-015559 JF - Ocean Sciences Meeting AU - Varner, Jesse AU - Neufeld, David AU - McLean, Susan AU - Lightsom, F AU - Miller, G AU - Wozencraft, Jennifer M AU - Sylvester, Charlene S AU - Wiggens, Charles E AU - Price, Daniel Y1 - 2012/02// PY - 2012 DA - February 2012 SP - 478 PB - American Geophysical Union (AGU), [varies] VL - 2012 KW - United States KW - currents KW - planning KW - elevation KW - data integration KW - marine geology KW - coastal environment KW - mapping KW - ocean currents KW - 07:Oceanography UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1507174668?accountid=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=Ocean+Sciences+Meeting&rft.atitle=A+prototype+elevation+data+geoportal+for+U.+S.+ocean+and+coastal+mapping&rft.au=Varner%2C+Jesse%3BNeufeld%2C+David%3BMcLean%2C+Susan%3BLightsom%2C+F%3BMiller%2C+G%3BWozencraft%2C+Jennifer+M%3BSylvester%2C+Charlene+S%3BWiggens%2C+Charles+E%3BPrice%2C+Daniel&rft.aulast=Varner&rft.aufirst=Jesse&rft.date=2012-02-01&rft.volume=2012&rft.issue=&rft.spage=478&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Ocean+Sciences+Meeting&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - TOS, ASLO, AGU 2012 ocean sciences meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2014-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-03-14 N1 - CODEN - #07653 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - coastal environment; currents; data integration; elevation; mapping; marine geology; ocean currents; planning; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Interannual and storm-related evolution of nearshore morphology and its relationship to shoreline behavior AN - 1287407109; 662769-134 JF - Ocean Sciences Meeting AU - Miselis, J L AU - McNinch, J E AU - List, J H AU - The Oceanography, Society AU - American Society of Limnology and, Oceanography AU - American Geophysical, Union Y1 - 2012/02// PY - 2012 DA - February 2012 SP - 320 PB - American Geophysical Union (AGU), [varies] VL - 2012 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1287407109?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefinprocess&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Ocean+Sciences+Meeting&rft.atitle=Interannual+and+storm-related+evolution+of+nearshore+morphology+and+its+relationship+to+shoreline+behavior&rft.au=Miselis%2C+J+L%3BMcNinch%2C+J+E%3BList%2C+J+H%3BThe+Oceanography%2C+Society%3BAmerican+Society+of+Limnology+and%2C+Oceanography%3BAmerican+Geophysical%2C+Union&rft.aulast=Miselis&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2012-02-01&rft.volume=2012&rft.issue=&rft.spage=320&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Ocean+Sciences+Meeting&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - TOS, ASLO, AGU 2012 ocean sciences meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef in Process, Copyright 2017, American Geosciences Institute. After editing and indexing, this record will be added to Georef. N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-24 N1 - CODEN - #07653 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Determining the influence of breakwaters on nearshore sedimentation in Chesapeake Bay; methods and observations AN - 1287399939; 662769-174 JF - Ocean Sciences Meeting AU - Palinkas, C M AU - Barth, N AU - Koch, E W AU - Shafer, D J AU - The Oceanography, Society AU - American Society of Limnology and, Oceanography AU - American Geophysical, Union Y1 - 2012/02// PY - 2012 DA - February 2012 SP - 355 PB - American Geophysical Union (AGU), [varies] VL - 2012 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1287399939?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefinprocess&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Ocean+Sciences+Meeting&rft.atitle=Determining+the+influence+of+breakwaters+on+nearshore+sedimentation+in+Chesapeake+Bay%3B+methods+and+observations&rft.au=Palinkas%2C+C+M%3BBarth%2C+N%3BKoch%2C+E+W%3BShafer%2C+D+J%3BThe+Oceanography%2C+Society%3BAmerican+Society+of+Limnology+and%2C+Oceanography%3BAmerican+Geophysical%2C+Union&rft.aulast=Palinkas&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2012-02-01&rft.volume=2012&rft.issue=&rft.spage=355&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Ocean+Sciences+Meeting&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - TOS, ASLO, AGU 2012 ocean sciences meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef in Process, Copyright 2017, American Geosciences Institute. After editing and indexing, this record will be added to Georef. N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-24 N1 - CODEN - #07653 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Sediment budget possibilities and improbabilities AN - 1112671686; 2012-089853 AB - Problems of constructing a sediment budget for an inlet is often a challenge due to constraints on data collection, quality of data, and assumptions one is willing to consider. Existing literature does not provide a systematic foundation for equations considered and often engineers and geologists typically do not properly consider the mathematical constraints placed on the problem of sediment budget construction. The present technical note presents a simple methodology for assessing sediment budget, i.e. what is possible, and what is not possible via a matrix equation system and linear algebra. It is hoped that engineers and geologists will not impose unrealistic expectations on the sediment budget system via using such an approach. Some simple examples are given of both pitfalls and correct approaches to sediment budget development. Abstract Copyright (2012) Elsevier, B.V. JF - Coastal Engineering AU - Walton, Todd L AU - Dean, Robert G AU - Rosati, Julie D Y1 - 2012/02// PY - 2012 DA - February 2012 SP - 323 EP - 325 PB - Elsevier, Amsterdam VL - 60 SN - 0378-3839, 0378-3839 KW - inlets KW - shore features KW - sediment budget KW - marine sediments KW - transport KW - sediment transport KW - sediments KW - coastal environment KW - mathematical models KW - 07:Oceanography UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1112671686?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Coastal+Engineering&rft.atitle=Sediment+budget+possibilities+and+improbabilities&rft.au=Walton%2C+Todd+L%3BDean%2C+Robert+G%3BRosati%2C+Julie+D&rft.aulast=Walton&rft.aufirst=Todd&rft.date=2012-02-01&rft.volume=60&rft.issue=&rft.spage=323&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Coastal+Engineering&rft.issn=03783839&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.coastaleng.2011.08.008 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03783839 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 6 N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-10-18 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - coastal environment; inlets; marine sediments; mathematical models; sediment budget; sediment transport; sediments; shore features; transport DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2011.08.008 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Late Quaternary paleoecology and Heinrich events at Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary, South Atlantic Bight, Georgia AN - 1033535268; 2012-075105 JF - Southeastern Geology AU - Garrison, Ervan G AU - Weaver, Wendy AU - Littman, Sherri L AU - Hale, Jessica Cook AU - Srivastava, Pradeep Y1 - 2012/02// PY - 2012 DA - February 2012 SP - 165 PB - Duke University, Department of Geology, Durham, NC VL - 48 IS - 4 SN - 0038-3678, 0038-3678 KW - United States KW - Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary KW - Savannah Georgia KW - Quaternary KW - Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain KW - paleoclimatology KW - paleoecology KW - Heinrich events KW - Cenozoic KW - pollen KW - paleoenvironment KW - Chatham County Georgia KW - upper Quaternary KW - palynomorphs KW - South Atlantic Bight KW - miospores KW - Georgia KW - microfossils KW - Atlantic Coastal Plain KW - 24:Quaternary geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1033535268?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Southeastern+Geology&rft.atitle=Late+Quaternary+paleoecology+and+Heinrich+events+at+Gray%27s+Reef+National+Marine+Sanctuary%2C+South+Atlantic+Bight%2C+Georgia&rft.au=Garrison%2C+Ervan+G%3BWeaver%2C+Wendy%3BLittman%2C+Sherri+L%3BHale%2C+Jessica+Cook%3BSrivastava%2C+Pradeep&rft.aulast=Garrison&rft.aufirst=Ervan&rft.date=2012-02-01&rft.volume=48&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=165&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southeastern+Geology&rft.issn=00383678&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.southeasterngeology.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 76 N1 - PubXState - NC N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 4 tables, sketch maps N1 - Last updated - 2012-08-16 N1 - CODEN - SOGEAY N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Atlantic Coastal Plain; Cenozoic; Chatham County Georgia; Georgia; Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary; Heinrich events; microfossils; miospores; paleoclimatology; paleoecology; paleoenvironment; palynomorphs; pollen; Quaternary; Savannah Georgia; South Atlantic Bight; Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain; United States; upper Quaternary ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Comparing transect survey and WSR-88D radar methods for monitoring daily changes in stopover migrant communities AN - 1017967873; 16685843 AB - ABSTRACT For decades, researchers have successfully used ground-based surveys to understand localized spatial and temporal patterns in stopover habitat use by migratory birds. Recent technological advances with WSR-88D radar now allow such investigations on much broader spatial scales. Both methods are assumed to accurately quantify patterns in migrant bird communities, yet information is lacking regarding relationships between radar estimates of migration and different ground-based monitoring methods. From 2005 to 2007, we monitored migrant communities on or near two Department of Defense installations in the spring (Ft. Polk Military Complex, LA; U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command, Yuma Proving Ground, AZ) and on two installations in the fall (Ft. Polk Military Complex, LA; Eglin Air Force Base, FL) using both ground-based transect surveys and radar imagery of birds aloft. We modeled daily changes in migrant abundance and positive and negative species turnover measured on the ground as a function of radar estimates of migrant exodus and input densities. Radar data were not significant predictors of any response variable in any season either in the southeastern or southwestern United States, indicating a disparity between the results obtained using different methods. Multiple unique sources of error associated with each technique likely contributed to the conflicting outcomes, and researchers should take great care when selecting monitoring methods appropriate to address research questions, effects of management practices, or when comparing the results of migration studies using different survey techniques. JF - Journal of Field Ornithology AU - Fischer, Richard A AU - Gauthreaux, Sidney A AU - Valente, Jonathon J AU - Guilfoyle, Michael P AU - Kaller, Michael D AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-6199, USA Y1 - 2012/02/01/ PY - 2012 DA - 2012 Feb 01 SP - 61 EP - 72 PB - Wiley-Blackwell, 111 River Street Hoboken NJ 07030-5774 United States VL - 83 IS - 1 SN - 0273-8570, 0273-8570 KW - Ecology Abstracts KW - Abundance KW - Data processing KW - Habitat utilization KW - Migration KW - Radar KW - Recruitment KW - D 04040:Ecosystem and Ecology Studies UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1017967873?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aecology&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Field+Ornithology&rft.atitle=Comparing+transect+survey+and+WSR-88D+radar+methods+for+monitoring+daily+changes+in+stopover+migrant+communities&rft.au=Fischer%2C+Richard+A%3BGauthreaux%2C+Sidney+A%3BValente%2C+Jonathon+J%3BGuilfoyle%2C+Michael+P%3BKaller%2C+Michael+D&rft.aulast=Fischer&rft.aufirst=Richard&rft.date=2012-02-01&rft.volume=83&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=61&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Field+Ornithology&rft.issn=02738570&rft_id=info:doi/http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%2Fj.1557-9263.2011.00356.x L2 - http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/jofo/2012/00000083/00000001/art00008 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - Last updated - 2013-01-25 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Data processing; Abundance; Recruitment; Radar; Habitat utilization; Migration DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1557-9263.2011.00356.x ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Observation and simulation of winds and hydrodynamics in St. Johns and Nassau Rivers AN - 1008820179; 2012-041565 AB - Water surface elevations and daily flows are measured in the St. Johns and Nassau Rivers (north Florida) and reveal a storm event in mid-May 2009 and a sea level anomaly in June and July 2009. In an effort to reproduce these events, wind and tidally driven hydrodynamics are simulated from the deep ocean into the St. Johns and Nassau Rivers using a shallow water equations model. Calibration adjusts spatially distributed Manning's roughness based on modeled-observed discharge. For validation, the model captures the regular tidal fluctuation as well as the hydrodynamic responses of the storm event in mid-May at the six water level gaging stations. At the flow gaging station, the model captures the ebb tendency of the tide as well as a strong perturbation (flood pulse) that occurs because of the storm event in mid-May. JF - Journal of Hydrology AU - Bacopoulos, Peter AU - Hagen, Scott C AU - Cox, Andrew T AU - Dally, William R AU - Bratos, Steven M Y1 - 2012/02// PY - 2012 DA - February 2012 SP - 391 EP - 402 PB - Elsevier, Amsterdam VL - 420-421 SN - 0022-1694, 0022-1694 KW - United States KW - rivers and streams KW - calibration KW - Jacksonville Florida KW - simulation KW - Florida KW - Nassau River KW - northeastern Florida KW - storms KW - diurnal variations KW - discharge KW - Atlantic Coastal Plain KW - hydrology KW - Duval County Florida KW - elevation KW - surface water KW - Saint Johns River KW - equations KW - tides KW - models KW - fluctuations KW - wetlands KW - streamflow KW - mathematical methods KW - atmospheric pressure KW - seasonal variations KW - winds KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1008820179?accountid=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+Hydrology&rft.atitle=Observation+and+simulation+of+winds+and+hydrodynamics+in+St.+Johns+and+Nassau+Rivers&rft.au=Bacopoulos%2C+Peter%3BHagen%2C+Scott+C%3BCox%2C+Andrew+T%3BDally%2C+William+R%3BBratos%2C+Steven+M&rft.aulast=Bacopoulos&rft.aufirst=Peter&rft.date=2012-02-01&rft.volume=420-421&rft.issue=&rft.spage=391&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Hydrology&rft.issn=00221694&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.jhydrol.2011.12.032 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00221694 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 34 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 5 tables, sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - JHYDA7 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Atlantic Coastal Plain; atmospheric pressure; calibration; discharge; diurnal variations; Duval County Florida; elevation; equations; Florida; fluctuations; hydrology; Jacksonville Florida; mathematical methods; models; Nassau River; northeastern Florida; rivers and streams; Saint Johns River; seasonal variations; simulation; storms; streamflow; surface water; tides; United States; wetlands; winds DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.12.032 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Demonstration of the Potential Energy Savings of a DC Powered Microgrid Office Project T2 - 15th Annual Energy, Utility & Environment Conference (EUEC 2012) AN - 1313097947; 6151134 JF - 15th Annual Energy, Utility & Environment Conference (EUEC 2012) AU - Johnson, Melanie AU - Stein, William Y1 - 2012/01/30/ PY - 2012 DA - 2012 Jan 30 KW - Potential energy UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1313097947?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=15th+Annual+Energy%2C+Utility+%26+Environment+Conference+%28EUEC+2012%29&rft.atitle=Demonstration+of+the+Potential+Energy+Savings+of+a+DC+Powered+Microgrid+Office+Project&rft.au=Johnson%2C+Melanie%3BStein%2C+William&rft.aulast=Johnson&rft.aufirst=Melanie&rft.date=2012-01-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+Annual+Energy%2C+Utility+%26+Environment+Conference+%28EUEC+2012%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://euec.com/getattachment/Index/Brochure_2012.pdf.aspx LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA STATE ROUTE 76 SOUTH MISSION ROAD TO INTERSTATE 15 HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 964164646; 15216 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a 5.6-mile segment of State Route 76 (SR-76) from South Mission Road to just east of the Interstate 15 (I-15) interchange in northern San Diego County, California are proposed. Within the project limits, SR-76 is currently a conventional highway with two lanes, nonstandard shoulders, and signalized at-grade intersections. Traffic on the route is over capacity and the highway is subject to congestion and travel delays. The San Luis Rey River, which runs parallel and to the south of the existing SR-76 alignment, supports several areas of riparian habitat that are considered important for the preservation of sensitive vegetation and wildlife. Development within the study area is limited to a large extent by the large floodplain area of the San Luis Rey River Valley and upland areas to the north and south, which are mostly built-out with large-lot homes. The northern portion of the study area is within the unincorporated community of Fallbrook and the southern and far-western portions of the project study area are within the unincorporated community of Bonsall. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative, the Existing Alignment Alternative and the Southern Alignment Alternative. The proposed project would widen and realign SR-76 from two to four lanes and modify the SR-76/I-15 interchange to a partial cloverleaf configuration by adding two loop on-ramps, realigning and widening the existing on- and off-ramps, and widening the bridge structure over I-15. The park and ride facility located north of SR-76 between Old Highway 395 and the southbound I-15 off-ramp would be improved and an area south of SR-76 is also evaluated for potential future expansion of the park and ride. The preferred Existing Alignment Alternative would include six signalized intersections along the alignment. The new facility would have a five-foot-wide minimum paved inside shoulder and an eight-foot-wide paved outside shoulder in each direction to accommodate bicycles, pedestrians, and emergency parking. The eastbound and westbound lanes would be separated by a varying width median (29-foot typical width). The proposed project would include elements such as wildlife crossings, directional wildlife fencing, habitat restoration, and land acquisitions to support wildlife habitat connectivity. The cost of construction for the Existing Alignment Alternative, including improvements to the I-15 interchange, is estimated at $201 million. Planned completion of the project is anticipated in 2015. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would maintain or improve future traffic levels of service in 2030 over existing levels of service, improve travel times within the corridor, and maintain the area as an effective link in the interregional movement of people and goods. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 49.2 acres of new right-of-way and would impact 68.8 acres of sensitive vegetation, 118.3 acres of farmland, 32.5 acres of wetlands, and 55.9 acres of floodplain. Critical habitat for arroyo toad, southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bell's vireo, and coastal California gnatcatcher would be affected. There would be moderate to moderately high impacts to the existing viewshed. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0493D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120018, Final EIS--624 pages and maps, Appendices--904 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/964164646?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+STATE+ROUTE+76+SOUTH+MISSION+ROAD+TO+INTERSTATE+15+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+STATE+ROUTE+76+SOUTH+MISSION+ROAD+TO+INTERSTATE+15+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-05 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 57 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046420; 15215-7_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 57 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046420?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 56 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046414; 15215-7_0056 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 56 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046414?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 55 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046406; 15215-7_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 55 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046406?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 53 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046395; 15215-7_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 53 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046395?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 52 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046388; 15215-7_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 52 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046388?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 46 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046380; 15215-7_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 46 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046380?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 45 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046377; 15215-7_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 45 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046377?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 50 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046356; 15215-7_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 50 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046356?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 49 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046351; 15215-7_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 49 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046351?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 48 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046345; 15215-7_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 48 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046345?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 44 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046335; 15215-7_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 44 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046335?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 43 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046334; 15215-7_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 43 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046334?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 42 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046329; 15215-7_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 42 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046329?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 41 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046327; 15215-7_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 41 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046327?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 12 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046323; 15215-7_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046323?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 40 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046322; 15215-7_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 40 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046322?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 11 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046318; 15215-7_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046318?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 39 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046314; 15215-7_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 39 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046314?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 38 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046310; 15215-7_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 38 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046310?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 37 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046304; 15215-7_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 37 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046304?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 36 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046298; 15215-7_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 36 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046298?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 35 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046293; 15215-7_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 35 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046293?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 34 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046287; 15215-7_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 34 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046287?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 33 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046282; 15215-7_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 33 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046282?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 29 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046276; 15215-7_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 29 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046276?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 26 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046273; 15215-7_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046273?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 24 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046262; 15215-7_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046262?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 10 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046257; 15215-7_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046257?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 9 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046251; 15215-7_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046251?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 8 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046244; 15215-7_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046244?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 28 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046072; 15215-7_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 28 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046072?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 27 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046069; 15215-7_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 27 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046069?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 32 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046064; 15215-7_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 32 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046064?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 31 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046063; 15215-7_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 31 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046063?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 30 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046062; 15215-7_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 30 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046062?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 18 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046058; 15215-7_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046058?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 17 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046057; 15215-7_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046057?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 16 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046055; 15215-7_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046055?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 15 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046052; 15215-7_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046052?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 14 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046051; 15215-7_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046051?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 13 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046049; 15215-7_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046049?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 23 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046048; 15215-7_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046048?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 7 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046047; 15215-7_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046047?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 22 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046046; 15215-7_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046046?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 21 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046045; 15215-7_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046045?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 5 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046043; 15215-7_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046043?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 20 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046042; 15215-7_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046042?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 4 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046041; 15215-7_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046041?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 3 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046040; 15215-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046040?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 2 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046039; 15215-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046039?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=TAPPAN+ZEE+HUDSON+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+ROCKLAND+AND+WESTCHESTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 1 of 57] T2 - TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 1020046038; 15215-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between the Village of South Nyack on the west and the Village of Tarrytown on the east, Rockland and Westchester counties, New York is proposed. The bridge carries Interstate 87 (New York State Thruway) and Interstate 287. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is being advanced specifically to address the immediate structural and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge and is also based on an assessment of limited project funding opportunities for the foreseeable future. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened to traffic in 1955 as part of the New York State Thruway extension between Suffern and Yonkers. Despite numerous improvements to the bridge and its highway connections, congestion has grown steadily over the years and the aging bridge structure has reached the point where major reconstruction and extensive measures are needed to sustain this vital link in the transportation system. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and a Replacement Bridge Alternative with two options for approach spans. The No Build Alternative would involve the continued operation of the existing seven-lane bridge with ongoing maintenance and measures necessary to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would replace the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with two new structures (one each for eastbound and westbound traffic) to the north of its existing location. New structures and modifications to Interstate 87/287 (I-87/287) between Interchange 10 (Route 9W) in Nyack and Interchange 9 (Route 9) in Tarrytown would be required. Reconfiguration of the Rockland landing would require reconstruction of the South Broadway Bridge slightly east of its existing location. The reconfigured highway would also require that new eastbound and westbound maintenance ramps be constructed from I-87/287 to River Road. In Westchester County, the new alignment would extend 100 feet to the north and 100 feet to the south of the existing bridge and I-87/287 would be widened to carry 10 lanes through the Westchester County toll plaza. The modifications to the Westchester landing would require reconstruction of the toll plaza, the westbound on-ramp from Route 9, and the existing New York State Thruway maintenance facility at Route 9. The short span and long span options differ in terms of the type of structure as well as the number of and distance between bridge piers. Both approach span options would include eight travel lanes with inside and outside shoulders on both structures. The north structure of each approach span option would also include a shared-use path to serve cyclists and pedestrians. Depending on the outcome of the design build process, project construction could take up to 5.5 years. Dredging would occur in three phases over a four-year period, and construction of the main span would take 3.5 years. Completion of the short span and long span approaches would take 3.5 to 4 years and 2.5 to 3 years, respectively. Demolition of the existing bridge is expected to take approximately one year. Construction cost is estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address the limitations and shortcomings of the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge and would maintain a vital link in the regional and national transportation network. The bridge design will provide the flexibility to potentially allow for both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, should a viable plan be developed and implemented in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Replacement Bridge Alternative could affect groundwater and surface water resources, floodplains, and river bottom sediments. Full or partial acquisition of, or temporary easements on, 12 properties would result in the displacement of nine households in South Nyack. In Westchester County, the project would result in a permanent easement on a small portion of land in Tarrytown. The project would have direct effects on three historic properties (Tappan Zee Bridge, Elizabeth Place Park, and the South Nyack Historic District) and create limited adverse noise and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120017, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--1,846 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-12-01-D KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046038?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA STATE ROUTE 76 SOUTH MISSION ROAD TO INTERSTATE 15 HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - CALIFORNIA STATE ROUTE 76 SOUTH MISSION ROAD TO INTERSTATE 15 HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1012743965; 15216-8_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a 5.6-mile segment of State Route 76 (SR-76) from South Mission Road to just east of the Interstate 15 (I-15) interchange in northern San Diego County, California are proposed. Within the project limits, SR-76 is currently a conventional highway with two lanes, nonstandard shoulders, and signalized at-grade intersections. Traffic on the route is over capacity and the highway is subject to congestion and travel delays. The San Luis Rey River, which runs parallel and to the south of the existing SR-76 alignment, supports several areas of riparian habitat that are considered important for the preservation of sensitive vegetation and wildlife. Development within the study area is limited to a large extent by the large floodplain area of the San Luis Rey River Valley and upland areas to the north and south, which are mostly built-out with large-lot homes. The northern portion of the study area is within the unincorporated community of Fallbrook and the southern and far-western portions of the project study area are within the unincorporated community of Bonsall. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative, the Existing Alignment Alternative and the Southern Alignment Alternative. The proposed project would widen and realign SR-76 from two to four lanes and modify the SR-76/I-15 interchange to a partial cloverleaf configuration by adding two loop on-ramps, realigning and widening the existing on- and off-ramps, and widening the bridge structure over I-15. The park and ride facility located north of SR-76 between Old Highway 395 and the southbound I-15 off-ramp would be improved and an area south of SR-76 is also evaluated for potential future expansion of the park and ride. The preferred Existing Alignment Alternative would include six signalized intersections along the alignment. The new facility would have a five-foot-wide minimum paved inside shoulder and an eight-foot-wide paved outside shoulder in each direction to accommodate bicycles, pedestrians, and emergency parking. The eastbound and westbound lanes would be separated by a varying width median (29-foot typical width). The proposed project would include elements such as wildlife crossings, directional wildlife fencing, habitat restoration, and land acquisitions to support wildlife habitat connectivity. The cost of construction for the Existing Alignment Alternative, including improvements to the I-15 interchange, is estimated at $201 million. Planned completion of the project is anticipated in 2015. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would maintain or improve future traffic levels of service in 2030 over existing levels of service, improve travel times within the corridor, and maintain the area as an effective link in the interregional movement of people and goods. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 49.2 acres of new right-of-way and would impact 68.8 acres of sensitive vegetation, 118.3 acres of farmland, 32.5 acres of wetlands, and 55.9 acres of floodplain. Critical habitat for arroyo toad, southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bell's vireo, and coastal California gnatcatcher would be affected. There would be moderate to moderately high impacts to the existing viewshed. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0493D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120018, Final EIS--624 pages and maps, Appendices--904 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743965?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+STATE+ROUTE+76+SOUTH+MISSION+ROAD+TO+INTERSTATE+15+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+STATE+ROUTE+76+SOUTH+MISSION+ROAD+TO+INTERSTATE+15+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA STATE ROUTE 76 SOUTH MISSION ROAD TO INTERSTATE 15 HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - CALIFORNIA STATE ROUTE 76 SOUTH MISSION ROAD TO INTERSTATE 15 HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1012743964; 15216-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a 5.6-mile segment of State Route 76 (SR-76) from South Mission Road to just east of the Interstate 15 (I-15) interchange in northern San Diego County, California are proposed. Within the project limits, SR-76 is currently a conventional highway with two lanes, nonstandard shoulders, and signalized at-grade intersections. Traffic on the route is over capacity and the highway is subject to congestion and travel delays. The San Luis Rey River, which runs parallel and to the south of the existing SR-76 alignment, supports several areas of riparian habitat that are considered important for the preservation of sensitive vegetation and wildlife. Development within the study area is limited to a large extent by the large floodplain area of the San Luis Rey River Valley and upland areas to the north and south, which are mostly built-out with large-lot homes. The northern portion of the study area is within the unincorporated community of Fallbrook and the southern and far-western portions of the project study area are within the unincorporated community of Bonsall. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative, the Existing Alignment Alternative and the Southern Alignment Alternative. The proposed project would widen and realign SR-76 from two to four lanes and modify the SR-76/I-15 interchange to a partial cloverleaf configuration by adding two loop on-ramps, realigning and widening the existing on- and off-ramps, and widening the bridge structure over I-15. The park and ride facility located north of SR-76 between Old Highway 395 and the southbound I-15 off-ramp would be improved and an area south of SR-76 is also evaluated for potential future expansion of the park and ride. The preferred Existing Alignment Alternative would include six signalized intersections along the alignment. The new facility would have a five-foot-wide minimum paved inside shoulder and an eight-foot-wide paved outside shoulder in each direction to accommodate bicycles, pedestrians, and emergency parking. The eastbound and westbound lanes would be separated by a varying width median (29-foot typical width). The proposed project would include elements such as wildlife crossings, directional wildlife fencing, habitat restoration, and land acquisitions to support wildlife habitat connectivity. The cost of construction for the Existing Alignment Alternative, including improvements to the I-15 interchange, is estimated at $201 million. Planned completion of the project is anticipated in 2015. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would maintain or improve future traffic levels of service in 2030 over existing levels of service, improve travel times within the corridor, and maintain the area as an effective link in the interregional movement of people and goods. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 49.2 acres of new right-of-way and would impact 68.8 acres of sensitive vegetation, 118.3 acres of farmland, 32.5 acres of wetlands, and 55.9 acres of floodplain. Critical habitat for arroyo toad, southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bell's vireo, and coastal California gnatcatcher would be affected. There would be moderate to moderately high impacts to the existing viewshed. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0493D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120018, Final EIS--624 pages and maps, Appendices--904 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743964?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+STATE+ROUTE+76+SOUTH+MISSION+ROAD+TO+INTERSTATE+15+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+STATE+ROUTE+76+SOUTH+MISSION+ROAD+TO+INTERSTATE+15+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 31 of 33] T2 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1012743274; 15213-5_0031 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the facilities serving the mainland terminus of the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route in the cities of Mukilteo and Everett, Snohomish County, Washington are proposed. The ferry route is part of State Route (SR) 525, the major transportation corridor across Possession Sound, which separates Island County (Whidbey Island) from the central Puget Sound mainland. The route is the second-busiest in terms of vehicle traffic in the state ferry system, and it has the third-largest annual ridership. The Mukilteo terminal has not had significant improvements since the early 1980s and components of the facility are aging. The current terminal layout makes it difficult for passengers to get in and out of the terminal and contributes to traffic congestion, safety concerns and conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This draft EIS evaluates four alternatives to upgrade or replace the Mukilteo ferry terminal. Two alternatives would preserve or improve the existing terminal and two alternatives would relocate the terminal to the tank farm east of the existing site. The Mukilteo tank farm, which includes a large pier, is a site with past contamination issues, many of which have been addressed by the Air Force. The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing ferry terminal at a functional level. The build alternatives have the following components in common: one operational ferry slip; a new multi-bay transit area; a pick-up/drop-off area; and holding lanes with dedicated staging for bicycles, carpools and priority vehicles. Under the Existing Site Improvements Alternative, the current terminal would be replaced with a facility at the current site. The Elliot Point 1 Alternative would relocate the Mukilteo ferry terminal to the eastern portion of the tank farm property. Because the shoreline slopes gradually in this location, the ferry slip would be located about 250 feet offshore, requiring a longer pier. A new passenger building and a maintenance building would be located overwater upon a new concrete trestle and an overhead passenger loading ramp would connect to the second story of a new passenger building. First Street would be realigned and extended as a four-lane roadway from SR 525 to the Mount Baker Terminal in the city of Everett. The alternative also includes modified intersections and a modification to the Sound Transit Mukilteo Station. The Elliot Point 2 Alternative would relocate the ferry terminal to the western portion of the tank farm site and the ferry slip would be closer to the shore. Passenger and maintenance buildings would be on land. Costs are estimated in 2015 dollars at $60 to $65 million for the No Build Alternative, $130 to $140 million for Existing Site Improvements, $150 to $165 million for Elliot Point 1, and $120 to $130 million for Elliot Point 2. Each estimate includes costs for construction, right-of-way costs and engineering. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: reduce conflicts, congestion, and safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles; improve the safety, security, and reliability of ferry operations; offer better and safer connections to buses and commuter rail; and accommodate future demand. Removal of creosote-treated piles at the existing facility, the fishing pier, and the tank farm pier would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In-water construction, pier removal, and dredging would have ecosystem impacts. The project area includes several important historic and archaeological sites, including a buried shell midden created by Native American peoples, with deposits dating back over 1,000 years. Mitigation would be required for temporary impacts to the fishing pier, impacts on the public shoreline access area, and impacts on archaeological sites. Although the removal of the tank farm pier would have long-term beneficial impacts, in-water construction activity under the Elliot Point alternatives would have more potential impacts to ecosystems, particularly if any contaminated sediments are encountered. By 2040, vehicle queues on SR 525 are projected to increase for the No Build, Existing Site Improvements, and Elliot Point 2 alternatives compared to what is seen today. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120015, Executive Summary--48 pages, Draft EIS--390 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--420 pages on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 31 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Ferries KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Possession Sound KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743274?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 30 of 33] T2 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1012743270; 15213-5_0030 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the facilities serving the mainland terminus of the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route in the cities of Mukilteo and Everett, Snohomish County, Washington are proposed. The ferry route is part of State Route (SR) 525, the major transportation corridor across Possession Sound, which separates Island County (Whidbey Island) from the central Puget Sound mainland. The route is the second-busiest in terms of vehicle traffic in the state ferry system, and it has the third-largest annual ridership. The Mukilteo terminal has not had significant improvements since the early 1980s and components of the facility are aging. The current terminal layout makes it difficult for passengers to get in and out of the terminal and contributes to traffic congestion, safety concerns and conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This draft EIS evaluates four alternatives to upgrade or replace the Mukilteo ferry terminal. Two alternatives would preserve or improve the existing terminal and two alternatives would relocate the terminal to the tank farm east of the existing site. The Mukilteo tank farm, which includes a large pier, is a site with past contamination issues, many of which have been addressed by the Air Force. The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing ferry terminal at a functional level. The build alternatives have the following components in common: one operational ferry slip; a new multi-bay transit area; a pick-up/drop-off area; and holding lanes with dedicated staging for bicycles, carpools and priority vehicles. Under the Existing Site Improvements Alternative, the current terminal would be replaced with a facility at the current site. The Elliot Point 1 Alternative would relocate the Mukilteo ferry terminal to the eastern portion of the tank farm property. Because the shoreline slopes gradually in this location, the ferry slip would be located about 250 feet offshore, requiring a longer pier. A new passenger building and a maintenance building would be located overwater upon a new concrete trestle and an overhead passenger loading ramp would connect to the second story of a new passenger building. First Street would be realigned and extended as a four-lane roadway from SR 525 to the Mount Baker Terminal in the city of Everett. The alternative also includes modified intersections and a modification to the Sound Transit Mukilteo Station. The Elliot Point 2 Alternative would relocate the ferry terminal to the western portion of the tank farm site and the ferry slip would be closer to the shore. Passenger and maintenance buildings would be on land. Costs are estimated in 2015 dollars at $60 to $65 million for the No Build Alternative, $130 to $140 million for Existing Site Improvements, $150 to $165 million for Elliot Point 1, and $120 to $130 million for Elliot Point 2. Each estimate includes costs for construction, right-of-way costs and engineering. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: reduce conflicts, congestion, and safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles; improve the safety, security, and reliability of ferry operations; offer better and safer connections to buses and commuter rail; and accommodate future demand. Removal of creosote-treated piles at the existing facility, the fishing pier, and the tank farm pier would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In-water construction, pier removal, and dredging would have ecosystem impacts. The project area includes several important historic and archaeological sites, including a buried shell midden created by Native American peoples, with deposits dating back over 1,000 years. Mitigation would be required for temporary impacts to the fishing pier, impacts on the public shoreline access area, and impacts on archaeological sites. Although the removal of the tank farm pier would have long-term beneficial impacts, in-water construction activity under the Elliot Point alternatives would have more potential impacts to ecosystems, particularly if any contaminated sediments are encountered. By 2040, vehicle queues on SR 525 are projected to increase for the No Build, Existing Site Improvements, and Elliot Point 2 alternatives compared to what is seen today. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120015, Executive Summary--48 pages, Draft EIS--390 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--420 pages on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 30 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Ferries KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Possession Sound KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743270?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 29 of 33] T2 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1012743266; 15213-5_0029 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the facilities serving the mainland terminus of the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route in the cities of Mukilteo and Everett, Snohomish County, Washington are proposed. The ferry route is part of State Route (SR) 525, the major transportation corridor across Possession Sound, which separates Island County (Whidbey Island) from the central Puget Sound mainland. The route is the second-busiest in terms of vehicle traffic in the state ferry system, and it has the third-largest annual ridership. The Mukilteo terminal has not had significant improvements since the early 1980s and components of the facility are aging. The current terminal layout makes it difficult for passengers to get in and out of the terminal and contributes to traffic congestion, safety concerns and conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This draft EIS evaluates four alternatives to upgrade or replace the Mukilteo ferry terminal. Two alternatives would preserve or improve the existing terminal and two alternatives would relocate the terminal to the tank farm east of the existing site. The Mukilteo tank farm, which includes a large pier, is a site with past contamination issues, many of which have been addressed by the Air Force. The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing ferry terminal at a functional level. The build alternatives have the following components in common: one operational ferry slip; a new multi-bay transit area; a pick-up/drop-off area; and holding lanes with dedicated staging for bicycles, carpools and priority vehicles. Under the Existing Site Improvements Alternative, the current terminal would be replaced with a facility at the current site. The Elliot Point 1 Alternative would relocate the Mukilteo ferry terminal to the eastern portion of the tank farm property. Because the shoreline slopes gradually in this location, the ferry slip would be located about 250 feet offshore, requiring a longer pier. A new passenger building and a maintenance building would be located overwater upon a new concrete trestle and an overhead passenger loading ramp would connect to the second story of a new passenger building. First Street would be realigned and extended as a four-lane roadway from SR 525 to the Mount Baker Terminal in the city of Everett. The alternative also includes modified intersections and a modification to the Sound Transit Mukilteo Station. The Elliot Point 2 Alternative would relocate the ferry terminal to the western portion of the tank farm site and the ferry slip would be closer to the shore. Passenger and maintenance buildings would be on land. Costs are estimated in 2015 dollars at $60 to $65 million for the No Build Alternative, $130 to $140 million for Existing Site Improvements, $150 to $165 million for Elliot Point 1, and $120 to $130 million for Elliot Point 2. Each estimate includes costs for construction, right-of-way costs and engineering. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: reduce conflicts, congestion, and safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles; improve the safety, security, and reliability of ferry operations; offer better and safer connections to buses and commuter rail; and accommodate future demand. Removal of creosote-treated piles at the existing facility, the fishing pier, and the tank farm pier would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In-water construction, pier removal, and dredging would have ecosystem impacts. The project area includes several important historic and archaeological sites, including a buried shell midden created by Native American peoples, with deposits dating back over 1,000 years. Mitigation would be required for temporary impacts to the fishing pier, impacts on the public shoreline access area, and impacts on archaeological sites. Although the removal of the tank farm pier would have long-term beneficial impacts, in-water construction activity under the Elliot Point alternatives would have more potential impacts to ecosystems, particularly if any contaminated sediments are encountered. By 2040, vehicle queues on SR 525 are projected to increase for the No Build, Existing Site Improvements, and Elliot Point 2 alternatives compared to what is seen today. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120015, Executive Summary--48 pages, Draft EIS--390 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--420 pages on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 29 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Ferries KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Possession Sound KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743266?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 28 of 33] T2 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1012743261; 15213-5_0028 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the facilities serving the mainland terminus of the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route in the cities of Mukilteo and Everett, Snohomish County, Washington are proposed. The ferry route is part of State Route (SR) 525, the major transportation corridor across Possession Sound, which separates Island County (Whidbey Island) from the central Puget Sound mainland. The route is the second-busiest in terms of vehicle traffic in the state ferry system, and it has the third-largest annual ridership. The Mukilteo terminal has not had significant improvements since the early 1980s and components of the facility are aging. The current terminal layout makes it difficult for passengers to get in and out of the terminal and contributes to traffic congestion, safety concerns and conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This draft EIS evaluates four alternatives to upgrade or replace the Mukilteo ferry terminal. Two alternatives would preserve or improve the existing terminal and two alternatives would relocate the terminal to the tank farm east of the existing site. The Mukilteo tank farm, which includes a large pier, is a site with past contamination issues, many of which have been addressed by the Air Force. The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing ferry terminal at a functional level. The build alternatives have the following components in common: one operational ferry slip; a new multi-bay transit area; a pick-up/drop-off area; and holding lanes with dedicated staging for bicycles, carpools and priority vehicles. Under the Existing Site Improvements Alternative, the current terminal would be replaced with a facility at the current site. The Elliot Point 1 Alternative would relocate the Mukilteo ferry terminal to the eastern portion of the tank farm property. Because the shoreline slopes gradually in this location, the ferry slip would be located about 250 feet offshore, requiring a longer pier. A new passenger building and a maintenance building would be located overwater upon a new concrete trestle and an overhead passenger loading ramp would connect to the second story of a new passenger building. First Street would be realigned and extended as a four-lane roadway from SR 525 to the Mount Baker Terminal in the city of Everett. The alternative also includes modified intersections and a modification to the Sound Transit Mukilteo Station. The Elliot Point 2 Alternative would relocate the ferry terminal to the western portion of the tank farm site and the ferry slip would be closer to the shore. Passenger and maintenance buildings would be on land. Costs are estimated in 2015 dollars at $60 to $65 million for the No Build Alternative, $130 to $140 million for Existing Site Improvements, $150 to $165 million for Elliot Point 1, and $120 to $130 million for Elliot Point 2. Each estimate includes costs for construction, right-of-way costs and engineering. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: reduce conflicts, congestion, and safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles; improve the safety, security, and reliability of ferry operations; offer better and safer connections to buses and commuter rail; and accommodate future demand. Removal of creosote-treated piles at the existing facility, the fishing pier, and the tank farm pier would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In-water construction, pier removal, and dredging would have ecosystem impacts. The project area includes several important historic and archaeological sites, including a buried shell midden created by Native American peoples, with deposits dating back over 1,000 years. Mitigation would be required for temporary impacts to the fishing pier, impacts on the public shoreline access area, and impacts on archaeological sites. Although the removal of the tank farm pier would have long-term beneficial impacts, in-water construction activity under the Elliot Point alternatives would have more potential impacts to ecosystems, particularly if any contaminated sediments are encountered. By 2040, vehicle queues on SR 525 are projected to increase for the No Build, Existing Site Improvements, and Elliot Point 2 alternatives compared to what is seen today. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120015, Executive Summary--48 pages, Draft EIS--390 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--420 pages on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 28 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Ferries KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Possession Sound KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743261?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 27 of 33] T2 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1012743255; 15213-5_0027 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the facilities serving the mainland terminus of the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route in the cities of Mukilteo and Everett, Snohomish County, Washington are proposed. The ferry route is part of State Route (SR) 525, the major transportation corridor across Possession Sound, which separates Island County (Whidbey Island) from the central Puget Sound mainland. The route is the second-busiest in terms of vehicle traffic in the state ferry system, and it has the third-largest annual ridership. The Mukilteo terminal has not had significant improvements since the early 1980s and components of the facility are aging. The current terminal layout makes it difficult for passengers to get in and out of the terminal and contributes to traffic congestion, safety concerns and conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This draft EIS evaluates four alternatives to upgrade or replace the Mukilteo ferry terminal. Two alternatives would preserve or improve the existing terminal and two alternatives would relocate the terminal to the tank farm east of the existing site. The Mukilteo tank farm, which includes a large pier, is a site with past contamination issues, many of which have been addressed by the Air Force. The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing ferry terminal at a functional level. The build alternatives have the following components in common: one operational ferry slip; a new multi-bay transit area; a pick-up/drop-off area; and holding lanes with dedicated staging for bicycles, carpools and priority vehicles. Under the Existing Site Improvements Alternative, the current terminal would be replaced with a facility at the current site. The Elliot Point 1 Alternative would relocate the Mukilteo ferry terminal to the eastern portion of the tank farm property. Because the shoreline slopes gradually in this location, the ferry slip would be located about 250 feet offshore, requiring a longer pier. A new passenger building and a maintenance building would be located overwater upon a new concrete trestle and an overhead passenger loading ramp would connect to the second story of a new passenger building. First Street would be realigned and extended as a four-lane roadway from SR 525 to the Mount Baker Terminal in the city of Everett. The alternative also includes modified intersections and a modification to the Sound Transit Mukilteo Station. The Elliot Point 2 Alternative would relocate the ferry terminal to the western portion of the tank farm site and the ferry slip would be closer to the shore. Passenger and maintenance buildings would be on land. Costs are estimated in 2015 dollars at $60 to $65 million for the No Build Alternative, $130 to $140 million for Existing Site Improvements, $150 to $165 million for Elliot Point 1, and $120 to $130 million for Elliot Point 2. Each estimate includes costs for construction, right-of-way costs and engineering. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: reduce conflicts, congestion, and safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles; improve the safety, security, and reliability of ferry operations; offer better and safer connections to buses and commuter rail; and accommodate future demand. Removal of creosote-treated piles at the existing facility, the fishing pier, and the tank farm pier would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In-water construction, pier removal, and dredging would have ecosystem impacts. The project area includes several important historic and archaeological sites, including a buried shell midden created by Native American peoples, with deposits dating back over 1,000 years. Mitigation would be required for temporary impacts to the fishing pier, impacts on the public shoreline access area, and impacts on archaeological sites. Although the removal of the tank farm pier would have long-term beneficial impacts, in-water construction activity under the Elliot Point alternatives would have more potential impacts to ecosystems, particularly if any contaminated sediments are encountered. By 2040, vehicle queues on SR 525 are projected to increase for the No Build, Existing Site Improvements, and Elliot Point 2 alternatives compared to what is seen today. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120015, Executive Summary--48 pages, Draft EIS--390 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--420 pages on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 27 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Ferries KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Possession Sound KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743255?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 20 of 33] T2 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1012743239; 15213-5_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the facilities serving the mainland terminus of the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route in the cities of Mukilteo and Everett, Snohomish County, Washington are proposed. The ferry route is part of State Route (SR) 525, the major transportation corridor across Possession Sound, which separates Island County (Whidbey Island) from the central Puget Sound mainland. The route is the second-busiest in terms of vehicle traffic in the state ferry system, and it has the third-largest annual ridership. The Mukilteo terminal has not had significant improvements since the early 1980s and components of the facility are aging. The current terminal layout makes it difficult for passengers to get in and out of the terminal and contributes to traffic congestion, safety concerns and conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This draft EIS evaluates four alternatives to upgrade or replace the Mukilteo ferry terminal. Two alternatives would preserve or improve the existing terminal and two alternatives would relocate the terminal to the tank farm east of the existing site. The Mukilteo tank farm, which includes a large pier, is a site with past contamination issues, many of which have been addressed by the Air Force. The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing ferry terminal at a functional level. The build alternatives have the following components in common: one operational ferry slip; a new multi-bay transit area; a pick-up/drop-off area; and holding lanes with dedicated staging for bicycles, carpools and priority vehicles. Under the Existing Site Improvements Alternative, the current terminal would be replaced with a facility at the current site. The Elliot Point 1 Alternative would relocate the Mukilteo ferry terminal to the eastern portion of the tank farm property. Because the shoreline slopes gradually in this location, the ferry slip would be located about 250 feet offshore, requiring a longer pier. A new passenger building and a maintenance building would be located overwater upon a new concrete trestle and an overhead passenger loading ramp would connect to the second story of a new passenger building. First Street would be realigned and extended as a four-lane roadway from SR 525 to the Mount Baker Terminal in the city of Everett. The alternative also includes modified intersections and a modification to the Sound Transit Mukilteo Station. The Elliot Point 2 Alternative would relocate the ferry terminal to the western portion of the tank farm site and the ferry slip would be closer to the shore. Passenger and maintenance buildings would be on land. Costs are estimated in 2015 dollars at $60 to $65 million for the No Build Alternative, $130 to $140 million for Existing Site Improvements, $150 to $165 million for Elliot Point 1, and $120 to $130 million for Elliot Point 2. Each estimate includes costs for construction, right-of-way costs and engineering. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: reduce conflicts, congestion, and safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles; improve the safety, security, and reliability of ferry operations; offer better and safer connections to buses and commuter rail; and accommodate future demand. Removal of creosote-treated piles at the existing facility, the fishing pier, and the tank farm pier would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In-water construction, pier removal, and dredging would have ecosystem impacts. The project area includes several important historic and archaeological sites, including a buried shell midden created by Native American peoples, with deposits dating back over 1,000 years. Mitigation would be required for temporary impacts to the fishing pier, impacts on the public shoreline access area, and impacts on archaeological sites. Although the removal of the tank farm pier would have long-term beneficial impacts, in-water construction activity under the Elliot Point alternatives would have more potential impacts to ecosystems, particularly if any contaminated sediments are encountered. By 2040, vehicle queues on SR 525 are projected to increase for the No Build, Existing Site Improvements, and Elliot Point 2 alternatives compared to what is seen today. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120015, Executive Summary--48 pages, Draft EIS--390 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--420 pages on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Ferries KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Possession Sound KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743239?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 19 of 33] T2 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1012743232; 15213-5_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the facilities serving the mainland terminus of the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route in the cities of Mukilteo and Everett, Snohomish County, Washington are proposed. The ferry route is part of State Route (SR) 525, the major transportation corridor across Possession Sound, which separates Island County (Whidbey Island) from the central Puget Sound mainland. The route is the second-busiest in terms of vehicle traffic in the state ferry system, and it has the third-largest annual ridership. The Mukilteo terminal has not had significant improvements since the early 1980s and components of the facility are aging. The current terminal layout makes it difficult for passengers to get in and out of the terminal and contributes to traffic congestion, safety concerns and conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This draft EIS evaluates four alternatives to upgrade or replace the Mukilteo ferry terminal. Two alternatives would preserve or improve the existing terminal and two alternatives would relocate the terminal to the tank farm east of the existing site. The Mukilteo tank farm, which includes a large pier, is a site with past contamination issues, many of which have been addressed by the Air Force. The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing ferry terminal at a functional level. The build alternatives have the following components in common: one operational ferry slip; a new multi-bay transit area; a pick-up/drop-off area; and holding lanes with dedicated staging for bicycles, carpools and priority vehicles. Under the Existing Site Improvements Alternative, the current terminal would be replaced with a facility at the current site. The Elliot Point 1 Alternative would relocate the Mukilteo ferry terminal to the eastern portion of the tank farm property. Because the shoreline slopes gradually in this location, the ferry slip would be located about 250 feet offshore, requiring a longer pier. A new passenger building and a maintenance building would be located overwater upon a new concrete trestle and an overhead passenger loading ramp would connect to the second story of a new passenger building. First Street would be realigned and extended as a four-lane roadway from SR 525 to the Mount Baker Terminal in the city of Everett. The alternative also includes modified intersections and a modification to the Sound Transit Mukilteo Station. The Elliot Point 2 Alternative would relocate the ferry terminal to the western portion of the tank farm site and the ferry slip would be closer to the shore. Passenger and maintenance buildings would be on land. Costs are estimated in 2015 dollars at $60 to $65 million for the No Build Alternative, $130 to $140 million for Existing Site Improvements, $150 to $165 million for Elliot Point 1, and $120 to $130 million for Elliot Point 2. Each estimate includes costs for construction, right-of-way costs and engineering. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: reduce conflicts, congestion, and safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles; improve the safety, security, and reliability of ferry operations; offer better and safer connections to buses and commuter rail; and accommodate future demand. Removal of creosote-treated piles at the existing facility, the fishing pier, and the tank farm pier would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In-water construction, pier removal, and dredging would have ecosystem impacts. The project area includes several important historic and archaeological sites, including a buried shell midden created by Native American peoples, with deposits dating back over 1,000 years. Mitigation would be required for temporary impacts to the fishing pier, impacts on the public shoreline access area, and impacts on archaeological sites. Although the removal of the tank farm pier would have long-term beneficial impacts, in-water construction activity under the Elliot Point alternatives would have more potential impacts to ecosystems, particularly if any contaminated sediments are encountered. By 2040, vehicle queues on SR 525 are projected to increase for the No Build, Existing Site Improvements, and Elliot Point 2 alternatives compared to what is seen today. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120015, Executive Summary--48 pages, Draft EIS--390 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--420 pages on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Ferries KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Possession Sound KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743232?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 18 of 33] T2 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1012743224; 15213-5_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the facilities serving the mainland terminus of the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route in the cities of Mukilteo and Everett, Snohomish County, Washington are proposed. The ferry route is part of State Route (SR) 525, the major transportation corridor across Possession Sound, which separates Island County (Whidbey Island) from the central Puget Sound mainland. The route is the second-busiest in terms of vehicle traffic in the state ferry system, and it has the third-largest annual ridership. The Mukilteo terminal has not had significant improvements since the early 1980s and components of the facility are aging. The current terminal layout makes it difficult for passengers to get in and out of the terminal and contributes to traffic congestion, safety concerns and conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This draft EIS evaluates four alternatives to upgrade or replace the Mukilteo ferry terminal. Two alternatives would preserve or improve the existing terminal and two alternatives would relocate the terminal to the tank farm east of the existing site. The Mukilteo tank farm, which includes a large pier, is a site with past contamination issues, many of which have been addressed by the Air Force. The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing ferry terminal at a functional level. The build alternatives have the following components in common: one operational ferry slip; a new multi-bay transit area; a pick-up/drop-off area; and holding lanes with dedicated staging for bicycles, carpools and priority vehicles. Under the Existing Site Improvements Alternative, the current terminal would be replaced with a facility at the current site. The Elliot Point 1 Alternative would relocate the Mukilteo ferry terminal to the eastern portion of the tank farm property. Because the shoreline slopes gradually in this location, the ferry slip would be located about 250 feet offshore, requiring a longer pier. A new passenger building and a maintenance building would be located overwater upon a new concrete trestle and an overhead passenger loading ramp would connect to the second story of a new passenger building. First Street would be realigned and extended as a four-lane roadway from SR 525 to the Mount Baker Terminal in the city of Everett. The alternative also includes modified intersections and a modification to the Sound Transit Mukilteo Station. The Elliot Point 2 Alternative would relocate the ferry terminal to the western portion of the tank farm site and the ferry slip would be closer to the shore. Passenger and maintenance buildings would be on land. Costs are estimated in 2015 dollars at $60 to $65 million for the No Build Alternative, $130 to $140 million for Existing Site Improvements, $150 to $165 million for Elliot Point 1, and $120 to $130 million for Elliot Point 2. Each estimate includes costs for construction, right-of-way costs and engineering. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: reduce conflicts, congestion, and safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles; improve the safety, security, and reliability of ferry operations; offer better and safer connections to buses and commuter rail; and accommodate future demand. Removal of creosote-treated piles at the existing facility, the fishing pier, and the tank farm pier would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In-water construction, pier removal, and dredging would have ecosystem impacts. The project area includes several important historic and archaeological sites, including a buried shell midden created by Native American peoples, with deposits dating back over 1,000 years. Mitigation would be required for temporary impacts to the fishing pier, impacts on the public shoreline access area, and impacts on archaeological sites. Although the removal of the tank farm pier would have long-term beneficial impacts, in-water construction activity under the Elliot Point alternatives would have more potential impacts to ecosystems, particularly if any contaminated sediments are encountered. By 2040, vehicle queues on SR 525 are projected to increase for the No Build, Existing Site Improvements, and Elliot Point 2 alternatives compared to what is seen today. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120015, Executive Summary--48 pages, Draft EIS--390 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--420 pages on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Ferries KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Possession Sound KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743224?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 17 of 33] T2 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1012743218; 15213-5_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the facilities serving the mainland terminus of the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route in the cities of Mukilteo and Everett, Snohomish County, Washington are proposed. The ferry route is part of State Route (SR) 525, the major transportation corridor across Possession Sound, which separates Island County (Whidbey Island) from the central Puget Sound mainland. The route is the second-busiest in terms of vehicle traffic in the state ferry system, and it has the third-largest annual ridership. The Mukilteo terminal has not had significant improvements since the early 1980s and components of the facility are aging. The current terminal layout makes it difficult for passengers to get in and out of the terminal and contributes to traffic congestion, safety concerns and conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This draft EIS evaluates four alternatives to upgrade or replace the Mukilteo ferry terminal. Two alternatives would preserve or improve the existing terminal and two alternatives would relocate the terminal to the tank farm east of the existing site. The Mukilteo tank farm, which includes a large pier, is a site with past contamination issues, many of which have been addressed by the Air Force. The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing ferry terminal at a functional level. The build alternatives have the following components in common: one operational ferry slip; a new multi-bay transit area; a pick-up/drop-off area; and holding lanes with dedicated staging for bicycles, carpools and priority vehicles. Under the Existing Site Improvements Alternative, the current terminal would be replaced with a facility at the current site. The Elliot Point 1 Alternative would relocate the Mukilteo ferry terminal to the eastern portion of the tank farm property. Because the shoreline slopes gradually in this location, the ferry slip would be located about 250 feet offshore, requiring a longer pier. A new passenger building and a maintenance building would be located overwater upon a new concrete trestle and an overhead passenger loading ramp would connect to the second story of a new passenger building. First Street would be realigned and extended as a four-lane roadway from SR 525 to the Mount Baker Terminal in the city of Everett. The alternative also includes modified intersections and a modification to the Sound Transit Mukilteo Station. The Elliot Point 2 Alternative would relocate the ferry terminal to the western portion of the tank farm site and the ferry slip would be closer to the shore. Passenger and maintenance buildings would be on land. Costs are estimated in 2015 dollars at $60 to $65 million for the No Build Alternative, $130 to $140 million for Existing Site Improvements, $150 to $165 million for Elliot Point 1, and $120 to $130 million for Elliot Point 2. Each estimate includes costs for construction, right-of-way costs and engineering. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: reduce conflicts, congestion, and safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles; improve the safety, security, and reliability of ferry operations; offer better and safer connections to buses and commuter rail; and accommodate future demand. Removal of creosote-treated piles at the existing facility, the fishing pier, and the tank farm pier would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In-water construction, pier removal, and dredging would have ecosystem impacts. The project area includes several important historic and archaeological sites, including a buried shell midden created by Native American peoples, with deposits dating back over 1,000 years. Mitigation would be required for temporary impacts to the fishing pier, impacts on the public shoreline access area, and impacts on archaeological sites. Although the removal of the tank farm pier would have long-term beneficial impacts, in-water construction activity under the Elliot Point alternatives would have more potential impacts to ecosystems, particularly if any contaminated sediments are encountered. By 2040, vehicle queues on SR 525 are projected to increase for the No Build, Existing Site Improvements, and Elliot Point 2 alternatives compared to what is seen today. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120015, Executive Summary--48 pages, Draft EIS--390 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--420 pages on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Ferries KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Possession Sound KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743218?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 16 of 33] T2 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1012743213; 15213-5_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the facilities serving the mainland terminus of the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route in the cities of Mukilteo and Everett, Snohomish County, Washington are proposed. The ferry route is part of State Route (SR) 525, the major transportation corridor across Possession Sound, which separates Island County (Whidbey Island) from the central Puget Sound mainland. The route is the second-busiest in terms of vehicle traffic in the state ferry system, and it has the third-largest annual ridership. The Mukilteo terminal has not had significant improvements since the early 1980s and components of the facility are aging. The current terminal layout makes it difficult for passengers to get in and out of the terminal and contributes to traffic congestion, safety concerns and conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This draft EIS evaluates four alternatives to upgrade or replace the Mukilteo ferry terminal. Two alternatives would preserve or improve the existing terminal and two alternatives would relocate the terminal to the tank farm east of the existing site. The Mukilteo tank farm, which includes a large pier, is a site with past contamination issues, many of which have been addressed by the Air Force. The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing ferry terminal at a functional level. The build alternatives have the following components in common: one operational ferry slip; a new multi-bay transit area; a pick-up/drop-off area; and holding lanes with dedicated staging for bicycles, carpools and priority vehicles. Under the Existing Site Improvements Alternative, the current terminal would be replaced with a facility at the current site. The Elliot Point 1 Alternative would relocate the Mukilteo ferry terminal to the eastern portion of the tank farm property. Because the shoreline slopes gradually in this location, the ferry slip would be located about 250 feet offshore, requiring a longer pier. A new passenger building and a maintenance building would be located overwater upon a new concrete trestle and an overhead passenger loading ramp would connect to the second story of a new passenger building. First Street would be realigned and extended as a four-lane roadway from SR 525 to the Mount Baker Terminal in the city of Everett. The alternative also includes modified intersections and a modification to the Sound Transit Mukilteo Station. The Elliot Point 2 Alternative would relocate the ferry terminal to the western portion of the tank farm site and the ferry slip would be closer to the shore. Passenger and maintenance buildings would be on land. Costs are estimated in 2015 dollars at $60 to $65 million for the No Build Alternative, $130 to $140 million for Existing Site Improvements, $150 to $165 million for Elliot Point 1, and $120 to $130 million for Elliot Point 2. Each estimate includes costs for construction, right-of-way costs and engineering. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: reduce conflicts, congestion, and safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles; improve the safety, security, and reliability of ferry operations; offer better and safer connections to buses and commuter rail; and accommodate future demand. Removal of creosote-treated piles at the existing facility, the fishing pier, and the tank farm pier would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In-water construction, pier removal, and dredging would have ecosystem impacts. The project area includes several important historic and archaeological sites, including a buried shell midden created by Native American peoples, with deposits dating back over 1,000 years. Mitigation would be required for temporary impacts to the fishing pier, impacts on the public shoreline access area, and impacts on archaeological sites. Although the removal of the tank farm pier would have long-term beneficial impacts, in-water construction activity under the Elliot Point alternatives would have more potential impacts to ecosystems, particularly if any contaminated sediments are encountered. By 2040, vehicle queues on SR 525 are projected to increase for the No Build, Existing Site Improvements, and Elliot Point 2 alternatives compared to what is seen today. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120015, Executive Summary--48 pages, Draft EIS--390 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--420 pages on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Ferries KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Possession Sound KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743213?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 15 of 33] T2 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1012743208; 15213-5_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the facilities serving the mainland terminus of the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route in the cities of Mukilteo and Everett, Snohomish County, Washington are proposed. The ferry route is part of State Route (SR) 525, the major transportation corridor across Possession Sound, which separates Island County (Whidbey Island) from the central Puget Sound mainland. The route is the second-busiest in terms of vehicle traffic in the state ferry system, and it has the third-largest annual ridership. The Mukilteo terminal has not had significant improvements since the early 1980s and components of the facility are aging. The current terminal layout makes it difficult for passengers to get in and out of the terminal and contributes to traffic congestion, safety concerns and conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This draft EIS evaluates four alternatives to upgrade or replace the Mukilteo ferry terminal. Two alternatives would preserve or improve the existing terminal and two alternatives would relocate the terminal to the tank farm east of the existing site. The Mukilteo tank farm, which includes a large pier, is a site with past contamination issues, many of which have been addressed by the Air Force. The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing ferry terminal at a functional level. The build alternatives have the following components in common: one operational ferry slip; a new multi-bay transit area; a pick-up/drop-off area; and holding lanes with dedicated staging for bicycles, carpools and priority vehicles. Under the Existing Site Improvements Alternative, the current terminal would be replaced with a facility at the current site. The Elliot Point 1 Alternative would relocate the Mukilteo ferry terminal to the eastern portion of the tank farm property. Because the shoreline slopes gradually in this location, the ferry slip would be located about 250 feet offshore, requiring a longer pier. A new passenger building and a maintenance building would be located overwater upon a new concrete trestle and an overhead passenger loading ramp would connect to the second story of a new passenger building. First Street would be realigned and extended as a four-lane roadway from SR 525 to the Mount Baker Terminal in the city of Everett. The alternative also includes modified intersections and a modification to the Sound Transit Mukilteo Station. The Elliot Point 2 Alternative would relocate the ferry terminal to the western portion of the tank farm site and the ferry slip would be closer to the shore. Passenger and maintenance buildings would be on land. Costs are estimated in 2015 dollars at $60 to $65 million for the No Build Alternative, $130 to $140 million for Existing Site Improvements, $150 to $165 million for Elliot Point 1, and $120 to $130 million for Elliot Point 2. Each estimate includes costs for construction, right-of-way costs and engineering. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: reduce conflicts, congestion, and safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles; improve the safety, security, and reliability of ferry operations; offer better and safer connections to buses and commuter rail; and accommodate future demand. Removal of creosote-treated piles at the existing facility, the fishing pier, and the tank farm pier would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In-water construction, pier removal, and dredging would have ecosystem impacts. The project area includes several important historic and archaeological sites, including a buried shell midden created by Native American peoples, with deposits dating back over 1,000 years. Mitigation would be required for temporary impacts to the fishing pier, impacts on the public shoreline access area, and impacts on archaeological sites. Although the removal of the tank farm pier would have long-term beneficial impacts, in-water construction activity under the Elliot Point alternatives would have more potential impacts to ecosystems, particularly if any contaminated sediments are encountered. By 2040, vehicle queues on SR 525 are projected to increase for the No Build, Existing Site Improvements, and Elliot Point 2 alternatives compared to what is seen today. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120015, Executive Summary--48 pages, Draft EIS--390 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--420 pages on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Ferries KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Possession Sound KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743208?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 26 of 33] T2 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1012743200; 15213-5_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the facilities serving the mainland terminus of the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route in the cities of Mukilteo and Everett, Snohomish County, Washington are proposed. The ferry route is part of State Route (SR) 525, the major transportation corridor across Possession Sound, which separates Island County (Whidbey Island) from the central Puget Sound mainland. The route is the second-busiest in terms of vehicle traffic in the state ferry system, and it has the third-largest annual ridership. The Mukilteo terminal has not had significant improvements since the early 1980s and components of the facility are aging. The current terminal layout makes it difficult for passengers to get in and out of the terminal and contributes to traffic congestion, safety concerns and conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This draft EIS evaluates four alternatives to upgrade or replace the Mukilteo ferry terminal. Two alternatives would preserve or improve the existing terminal and two alternatives would relocate the terminal to the tank farm east of the existing site. The Mukilteo tank farm, which includes a large pier, is a site with past contamination issues, many of which have been addressed by the Air Force. The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing ferry terminal at a functional level. The build alternatives have the following components in common: one operational ferry slip; a new multi-bay transit area; a pick-up/drop-off area; and holding lanes with dedicated staging for bicycles, carpools and priority vehicles. Under the Existing Site Improvements Alternative, the current terminal would be replaced with a facility at the current site. The Elliot Point 1 Alternative would relocate the Mukilteo ferry terminal to the eastern portion of the tank farm property. Because the shoreline slopes gradually in this location, the ferry slip would be located about 250 feet offshore, requiring a longer pier. A new passenger building and a maintenance building would be located overwater upon a new concrete trestle and an overhead passenger loading ramp would connect to the second story of a new passenger building. First Street would be realigned and extended as a four-lane roadway from SR 525 to the Mount Baker Terminal in the city of Everett. The alternative also includes modified intersections and a modification to the Sound Transit Mukilteo Station. The Elliot Point 2 Alternative would relocate the ferry terminal to the western portion of the tank farm site and the ferry slip would be closer to the shore. Passenger and maintenance buildings would be on land. Costs are estimated in 2015 dollars at $60 to $65 million for the No Build Alternative, $130 to $140 million for Existing Site Improvements, $150 to $165 million for Elliot Point 1, and $120 to $130 million for Elliot Point 2. Each estimate includes costs for construction, right-of-way costs and engineering. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: reduce conflicts, congestion, and safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles; improve the safety, security, and reliability of ferry operations; offer better and safer connections to buses and commuter rail; and accommodate future demand. Removal of creosote-treated piles at the existing facility, the fishing pier, and the tank farm pier would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In-water construction, pier removal, and dredging would have ecosystem impacts. The project area includes several important historic and archaeological sites, including a buried shell midden created by Native American peoples, with deposits dating back over 1,000 years. Mitigation would be required for temporary impacts to the fishing pier, impacts on the public shoreline access area, and impacts on archaeological sites. Although the removal of the tank farm pier would have long-term beneficial impacts, in-water construction activity under the Elliot Point alternatives would have more potential impacts to ecosystems, particularly if any contaminated sediments are encountered. By 2040, vehicle queues on SR 525 are projected to increase for the No Build, Existing Site Improvements, and Elliot Point 2 alternatives compared to what is seen today. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120015, Executive Summary--48 pages, Draft EIS--390 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--420 pages on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Ferries KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Possession Sound KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743200?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 4 of 33] T2 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1012743195; 15213-5_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the facilities serving the mainland terminus of the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route in the cities of Mukilteo and Everett, Snohomish County, Washington are proposed. The ferry route is part of State Route (SR) 525, the major transportation corridor across Possession Sound, which separates Island County (Whidbey Island) from the central Puget Sound mainland. The route is the second-busiest in terms of vehicle traffic in the state ferry system, and it has the third-largest annual ridership. The Mukilteo terminal has not had significant improvements since the early 1980s and components of the facility are aging. The current terminal layout makes it difficult for passengers to get in and out of the terminal and contributes to traffic congestion, safety concerns and conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This draft EIS evaluates four alternatives to upgrade or replace the Mukilteo ferry terminal. Two alternatives would preserve or improve the existing terminal and two alternatives would relocate the terminal to the tank farm east of the existing site. The Mukilteo tank farm, which includes a large pier, is a site with past contamination issues, many of which have been addressed by the Air Force. The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing ferry terminal at a functional level. The build alternatives have the following components in common: one operational ferry slip; a new multi-bay transit area; a pick-up/drop-off area; and holding lanes with dedicated staging for bicycles, carpools and priority vehicles. Under the Existing Site Improvements Alternative, the current terminal would be replaced with a facility at the current site. The Elliot Point 1 Alternative would relocate the Mukilteo ferry terminal to the eastern portion of the tank farm property. Because the shoreline slopes gradually in this location, the ferry slip would be located about 250 feet offshore, requiring a longer pier. A new passenger building and a maintenance building would be located overwater upon a new concrete trestle and an overhead passenger loading ramp would connect to the second story of a new passenger building. First Street would be realigned and extended as a four-lane roadway from SR 525 to the Mount Baker Terminal in the city of Everett. The alternative also includes modified intersections and a modification to the Sound Transit Mukilteo Station. The Elliot Point 2 Alternative would relocate the ferry terminal to the western portion of the tank farm site and the ferry slip would be closer to the shore. Passenger and maintenance buildings would be on land. Costs are estimated in 2015 dollars at $60 to $65 million for the No Build Alternative, $130 to $140 million for Existing Site Improvements, $150 to $165 million for Elliot Point 1, and $120 to $130 million for Elliot Point 2. Each estimate includes costs for construction, right-of-way costs and engineering. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: reduce conflicts, congestion, and safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles; improve the safety, security, and reliability of ferry operations; offer better and safer connections to buses and commuter rail; and accommodate future demand. Removal of creosote-treated piles at the existing facility, the fishing pier, and the tank farm pier would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In-water construction, pier removal, and dredging would have ecosystem impacts. The project area includes several important historic and archaeological sites, including a buried shell midden created by Native American peoples, with deposits dating back over 1,000 years. Mitigation would be required for temporary impacts to the fishing pier, impacts on the public shoreline access area, and impacts on archaeological sites. Although the removal of the tank farm pier would have long-term beneficial impacts, in-water construction activity under the Elliot Point alternatives would have more potential impacts to ecosystems, particularly if any contaminated sediments are encountered. By 2040, vehicle queues on SR 525 are projected to increase for the No Build, Existing Site Improvements, and Elliot Point 2 alternatives compared to what is seen today. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120015, Executive Summary--48 pages, Draft EIS--390 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--420 pages on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Ferries KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Possession Sound KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743195?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 3 of 33] T2 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1012743189; 15213-5_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the facilities serving the mainland terminus of the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route in the cities of Mukilteo and Everett, Snohomish County, Washington are proposed. The ferry route is part of State Route (SR) 525, the major transportation corridor across Possession Sound, which separates Island County (Whidbey Island) from the central Puget Sound mainland. The route is the second-busiest in terms of vehicle traffic in the state ferry system, and it has the third-largest annual ridership. The Mukilteo terminal has not had significant improvements since the early 1980s and components of the facility are aging. The current terminal layout makes it difficult for passengers to get in and out of the terminal and contributes to traffic congestion, safety concerns and conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This draft EIS evaluates four alternatives to upgrade or replace the Mukilteo ferry terminal. Two alternatives would preserve or improve the existing terminal and two alternatives would relocate the terminal to the tank farm east of the existing site. The Mukilteo tank farm, which includes a large pier, is a site with past contamination issues, many of which have been addressed by the Air Force. The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing ferry terminal at a functional level. The build alternatives have the following components in common: one operational ferry slip; a new multi-bay transit area; a pick-up/drop-off area; and holding lanes with dedicated staging for bicycles, carpools and priority vehicles. Under the Existing Site Improvements Alternative, the current terminal would be replaced with a facility at the current site. The Elliot Point 1 Alternative would relocate the Mukilteo ferry terminal to the eastern portion of the tank farm property. Because the shoreline slopes gradually in this location, the ferry slip would be located about 250 feet offshore, requiring a longer pier. A new passenger building and a maintenance building would be located overwater upon a new concrete trestle and an overhead passenger loading ramp would connect to the second story of a new passenger building. First Street would be realigned and extended as a four-lane roadway from SR 525 to the Mount Baker Terminal in the city of Everett. The alternative also includes modified intersections and a modification to the Sound Transit Mukilteo Station. The Elliot Point 2 Alternative would relocate the ferry terminal to the western portion of the tank farm site and the ferry slip would be closer to the shore. Passenger and maintenance buildings would be on land. Costs are estimated in 2015 dollars at $60 to $65 million for the No Build Alternative, $130 to $140 million for Existing Site Improvements, $150 to $165 million for Elliot Point 1, and $120 to $130 million for Elliot Point 2. Each estimate includes costs for construction, right-of-way costs and engineering. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: reduce conflicts, congestion, and safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles; improve the safety, security, and reliability of ferry operations; offer better and safer connections to buses and commuter rail; and accommodate future demand. Removal of creosote-treated piles at the existing facility, the fishing pier, and the tank farm pier would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In-water construction, pier removal, and dredging would have ecosystem impacts. The project area includes several important historic and archaeological sites, including a buried shell midden created by Native American peoples, with deposits dating back over 1,000 years. Mitigation would be required for temporary impacts to the fishing pier, impacts on the public shoreline access area, and impacts on archaeological sites. Although the removal of the tank farm pier would have long-term beneficial impacts, in-water construction activity under the Elliot Point alternatives would have more potential impacts to ecosystems, particularly if any contaminated sediments are encountered. By 2040, vehicle queues on SR 525 are projected to increase for the No Build, Existing Site Improvements, and Elliot Point 2 alternatives compared to what is seen today. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120015, Executive Summary--48 pages, Draft EIS--390 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--420 pages on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Ferries KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Possession Sound KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743189?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 2 of 33] T2 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1012743182; 15213-5_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the facilities serving the mainland terminus of the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route in the cities of Mukilteo and Everett, Snohomish County, Washington are proposed. The ferry route is part of State Route (SR) 525, the major transportation corridor across Possession Sound, which separates Island County (Whidbey Island) from the central Puget Sound mainland. The route is the second-busiest in terms of vehicle traffic in the state ferry system, and it has the third-largest annual ridership. The Mukilteo terminal has not had significant improvements since the early 1980s and components of the facility are aging. The current terminal layout makes it difficult for passengers to get in and out of the terminal and contributes to traffic congestion, safety concerns and conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This draft EIS evaluates four alternatives to upgrade or replace the Mukilteo ferry terminal. Two alternatives would preserve or improve the existing terminal and two alternatives would relocate the terminal to the tank farm east of the existing site. The Mukilteo tank farm, which includes a large pier, is a site with past contamination issues, many of which have been addressed by the Air Force. The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing ferry terminal at a functional level. The build alternatives have the following components in common: one operational ferry slip; a new multi-bay transit area; a pick-up/drop-off area; and holding lanes with dedicated staging for bicycles, carpools and priority vehicles. Under the Existing Site Improvements Alternative, the current terminal would be replaced with a facility at the current site. The Elliot Point 1 Alternative would relocate the Mukilteo ferry terminal to the eastern portion of the tank farm property. Because the shoreline slopes gradually in this location, the ferry slip would be located about 250 feet offshore, requiring a longer pier. A new passenger building and a maintenance building would be located overwater upon a new concrete trestle and an overhead passenger loading ramp would connect to the second story of a new passenger building. First Street would be realigned and extended as a four-lane roadway from SR 525 to the Mount Baker Terminal in the city of Everett. The alternative also includes modified intersections and a modification to the Sound Transit Mukilteo Station. The Elliot Point 2 Alternative would relocate the ferry terminal to the western portion of the tank farm site and the ferry slip would be closer to the shore. Passenger and maintenance buildings would be on land. Costs are estimated in 2015 dollars at $60 to $65 million for the No Build Alternative, $130 to $140 million for Existing Site Improvements, $150 to $165 million for Elliot Point 1, and $120 to $130 million for Elliot Point 2. Each estimate includes costs for construction, right-of-way costs and engineering. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: reduce conflicts, congestion, and safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles; improve the safety, security, and reliability of ferry operations; offer better and safer connections to buses and commuter rail; and accommodate future demand. Removal of creosote-treated piles at the existing facility, the fishing pier, and the tank farm pier would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In-water construction, pier removal, and dredging would have ecosystem impacts. The project area includes several important historic and archaeological sites, including a buried shell midden created by Native American peoples, with deposits dating back over 1,000 years. Mitigation would be required for temporary impacts to the fishing pier, impacts on the public shoreline access area, and impacts on archaeological sites. Although the removal of the tank farm pier would have long-term beneficial impacts, in-water construction activity under the Elliot Point alternatives would have more potential impacts to ecosystems, particularly if any contaminated sediments are encountered. By 2040, vehicle queues on SR 525 are projected to increase for the No Build, Existing Site Improvements, and Elliot Point 2 alternatives compared to what is seen today. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120015, Executive Summary--48 pages, Draft EIS--390 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--420 pages on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Ferries KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Possession Sound KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743182?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 33] T2 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1012743173; 15213-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the facilities serving the mainland terminus of the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route in the cities of Mukilteo and Everett, Snohomish County, Washington are proposed. The ferry route is part of State Route (SR) 525, the major transportation corridor across Possession Sound, which separates Island County (Whidbey Island) from the central Puget Sound mainland. The route is the second-busiest in terms of vehicle traffic in the state ferry system, and it has the third-largest annual ridership. The Mukilteo terminal has not had significant improvements since the early 1980s and components of the facility are aging. The current terminal layout makes it difficult for passengers to get in and out of the terminal and contributes to traffic congestion, safety concerns and conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This draft EIS evaluates four alternatives to upgrade or replace the Mukilteo ferry terminal. Two alternatives would preserve or improve the existing terminal and two alternatives would relocate the terminal to the tank farm east of the existing site. The Mukilteo tank farm, which includes a large pier, is a site with past contamination issues, many of which have been addressed by the Air Force. The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing ferry terminal at a functional level. The build alternatives have the following components in common: one operational ferry slip; a new multi-bay transit area; a pick-up/drop-off area; and holding lanes with dedicated staging for bicycles, carpools and priority vehicles. Under the Existing Site Improvements Alternative, the current terminal would be replaced with a facility at the current site. The Elliot Point 1 Alternative would relocate the Mukilteo ferry terminal to the eastern portion of the tank farm property. Because the shoreline slopes gradually in this location, the ferry slip would be located about 250 feet offshore, requiring a longer pier. A new passenger building and a maintenance building would be located overwater upon a new concrete trestle and an overhead passenger loading ramp would connect to the second story of a new passenger building. First Street would be realigned and extended as a four-lane roadway from SR 525 to the Mount Baker Terminal in the city of Everett. The alternative also includes modified intersections and a modification to the Sound Transit Mukilteo Station. The Elliot Point 2 Alternative would relocate the ferry terminal to the western portion of the tank farm site and the ferry slip would be closer to the shore. Passenger and maintenance buildings would be on land. Costs are estimated in 2015 dollars at $60 to $65 million for the No Build Alternative, $130 to $140 million for Existing Site Improvements, $150 to $165 million for Elliot Point 1, and $120 to $130 million for Elliot Point 2. Each estimate includes costs for construction, right-of-way costs and engineering. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: reduce conflicts, congestion, and safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles; improve the safety, security, and reliability of ferry operations; offer better and safer connections to buses and commuter rail; and accommodate future demand. Removal of creosote-treated piles at the existing facility, the fishing pier, and the tank farm pier would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In-water construction, pier removal, and dredging would have ecosystem impacts. The project area includes several important historic and archaeological sites, including a buried shell midden created by Native American peoples, with deposits dating back over 1,000 years. Mitigation would be required for temporary impacts to the fishing pier, impacts on the public shoreline access area, and impacts on archaeological sites. Although the removal of the tank farm pier would have long-term beneficial impacts, in-water construction activity under the Elliot Point alternatives would have more potential impacts to ecosystems, particularly if any contaminated sediments are encountered. By 2040, vehicle queues on SR 525 are projected to increase for the No Build, Existing Site Improvements, and Elliot Point 2 alternatives compared to what is seen today. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120015, Executive Summary--48 pages, Draft EIS--390 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--420 pages on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Ferries KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Possession Sound KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743173?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 9 of 33] T2 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1012743073; 15213-5_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the facilities serving the mainland terminus of the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route in the cities of Mukilteo and Everett, Snohomish County, Washington are proposed. The ferry route is part of State Route (SR) 525, the major transportation corridor across Possession Sound, which separates Island County (Whidbey Island) from the central Puget Sound mainland. The route is the second-busiest in terms of vehicle traffic in the state ferry system, and it has the third-largest annual ridership. The Mukilteo terminal has not had significant improvements since the early 1980s and components of the facility are aging. The current terminal layout makes it difficult for passengers to get in and out of the terminal and contributes to traffic congestion, safety concerns and conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This draft EIS evaluates four alternatives to upgrade or replace the Mukilteo ferry terminal. Two alternatives would preserve or improve the existing terminal and two alternatives would relocate the terminal to the tank farm east of the existing site. The Mukilteo tank farm, which includes a large pier, is a site with past contamination issues, many of which have been addressed by the Air Force. The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing ferry terminal at a functional level. The build alternatives have the following components in common: one operational ferry slip; a new multi-bay transit area; a pick-up/drop-off area; and holding lanes with dedicated staging for bicycles, carpools and priority vehicles. Under the Existing Site Improvements Alternative, the current terminal would be replaced with a facility at the current site. The Elliot Point 1 Alternative would relocate the Mukilteo ferry terminal to the eastern portion of the tank farm property. Because the shoreline slopes gradually in this location, the ferry slip would be located about 250 feet offshore, requiring a longer pier. A new passenger building and a maintenance building would be located overwater upon a new concrete trestle and an overhead passenger loading ramp would connect to the second story of a new passenger building. First Street would be realigned and extended as a four-lane roadway from SR 525 to the Mount Baker Terminal in the city of Everett. The alternative also includes modified intersections and a modification to the Sound Transit Mukilteo Station. The Elliot Point 2 Alternative would relocate the ferry terminal to the western portion of the tank farm site and the ferry slip would be closer to the shore. Passenger and maintenance buildings would be on land. Costs are estimated in 2015 dollars at $60 to $65 million for the No Build Alternative, $130 to $140 million for Existing Site Improvements, $150 to $165 million for Elliot Point 1, and $120 to $130 million for Elliot Point 2. Each estimate includes costs for construction, right-of-way costs and engineering. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: reduce conflicts, congestion, and safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles; improve the safety, security, and reliability of ferry operations; offer better and safer connections to buses and commuter rail; and accommodate future demand. Removal of creosote-treated piles at the existing facility, the fishing pier, and the tank farm pier would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In-water construction, pier removal, and dredging would have ecosystem impacts. The project area includes several important historic and archaeological sites, including a buried shell midden created by Native American peoples, with deposits dating back over 1,000 years. Mitigation would be required for temporary impacts to the fishing pier, impacts on the public shoreline access area, and impacts on archaeological sites. Although the removal of the tank farm pier would have long-term beneficial impacts, in-water construction activity under the Elliot Point alternatives would have more potential impacts to ecosystems, particularly if any contaminated sediments are encountered. By 2040, vehicle queues on SR 525 are projected to increase for the No Build, Existing Site Improvements, and Elliot Point 2 alternatives compared to what is seen today. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120015, Executive Summary--48 pages, Draft EIS--390 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--420 pages on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Ferries KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Possession Sound KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743073?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 8 of 33] T2 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1012743063; 15213-5_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the facilities serving the mainland terminus of the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route in the cities of Mukilteo and Everett, Snohomish County, Washington are proposed. The ferry route is part of State Route (SR) 525, the major transportation corridor across Possession Sound, which separates Island County (Whidbey Island) from the central Puget Sound mainland. The route is the second-busiest in terms of vehicle traffic in the state ferry system, and it has the third-largest annual ridership. The Mukilteo terminal has not had significant improvements since the early 1980s and components of the facility are aging. The current terminal layout makes it difficult for passengers to get in and out of the terminal and contributes to traffic congestion, safety concerns and conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This draft EIS evaluates four alternatives to upgrade or replace the Mukilteo ferry terminal. Two alternatives would preserve or improve the existing terminal and two alternatives would relocate the terminal to the tank farm east of the existing site. The Mukilteo tank farm, which includes a large pier, is a site with past contamination issues, many of which have been addressed by the Air Force. The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing ferry terminal at a functional level. The build alternatives have the following components in common: one operational ferry slip; a new multi-bay transit area; a pick-up/drop-off area; and holding lanes with dedicated staging for bicycles, carpools and priority vehicles. Under the Existing Site Improvements Alternative, the current terminal would be replaced with a facility at the current site. The Elliot Point 1 Alternative would relocate the Mukilteo ferry terminal to the eastern portion of the tank farm property. Because the shoreline slopes gradually in this location, the ferry slip would be located about 250 feet offshore, requiring a longer pier. A new passenger building and a maintenance building would be located overwater upon a new concrete trestle and an overhead passenger loading ramp would connect to the second story of a new passenger building. First Street would be realigned and extended as a four-lane roadway from SR 525 to the Mount Baker Terminal in the city of Everett. The alternative also includes modified intersections and a modification to the Sound Transit Mukilteo Station. The Elliot Point 2 Alternative would relocate the ferry terminal to the western portion of the tank farm site and the ferry slip would be closer to the shore. Passenger and maintenance buildings would be on land. Costs are estimated in 2015 dollars at $60 to $65 million for the No Build Alternative, $130 to $140 million for Existing Site Improvements, $150 to $165 million for Elliot Point 1, and $120 to $130 million for Elliot Point 2. Each estimate includes costs for construction, right-of-way costs and engineering. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: reduce conflicts, congestion, and safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles; improve the safety, security, and reliability of ferry operations; offer better and safer connections to buses and commuter rail; and accommodate future demand. Removal of creosote-treated piles at the existing facility, the fishing pier, and the tank farm pier would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In-water construction, pier removal, and dredging would have ecosystem impacts. The project area includes several important historic and archaeological sites, including a buried shell midden created by Native American peoples, with deposits dating back over 1,000 years. Mitigation would be required for temporary impacts to the fishing pier, impacts on the public shoreline access area, and impacts on archaeological sites. Although the removal of the tank farm pier would have long-term beneficial impacts, in-water construction activity under the Elliot Point alternatives would have more potential impacts to ecosystems, particularly if any contaminated sediments are encountered. By 2040, vehicle queues on SR 525 are projected to increase for the No Build, Existing Site Improvements, and Elliot Point 2 alternatives compared to what is seen today. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120015, Executive Summary--48 pages, Draft EIS--390 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--420 pages on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Ferries KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Possession Sound KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743063?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 33 of 33] T2 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1012743054; 15213-5_0033 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the facilities serving the mainland terminus of the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route in the cities of Mukilteo and Everett, Snohomish County, Washington are proposed. The ferry route is part of State Route (SR) 525, the major transportation corridor across Possession Sound, which separates Island County (Whidbey Island) from the central Puget Sound mainland. The route is the second-busiest in terms of vehicle traffic in the state ferry system, and it has the third-largest annual ridership. The Mukilteo terminal has not had significant improvements since the early 1980s and components of the facility are aging. The current terminal layout makes it difficult for passengers to get in and out of the terminal and contributes to traffic congestion, safety concerns and conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This draft EIS evaluates four alternatives to upgrade or replace the Mukilteo ferry terminal. Two alternatives would preserve or improve the existing terminal and two alternatives would relocate the terminal to the tank farm east of the existing site. The Mukilteo tank farm, which includes a large pier, is a site with past contamination issues, many of which have been addressed by the Air Force. The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing ferry terminal at a functional level. The build alternatives have the following components in common: one operational ferry slip; a new multi-bay transit area; a pick-up/drop-off area; and holding lanes with dedicated staging for bicycles, carpools and priority vehicles. Under the Existing Site Improvements Alternative, the current terminal would be replaced with a facility at the current site. The Elliot Point 1 Alternative would relocate the Mukilteo ferry terminal to the eastern portion of the tank farm property. Because the shoreline slopes gradually in this location, the ferry slip would be located about 250 feet offshore, requiring a longer pier. A new passenger building and a maintenance building would be located overwater upon a new concrete trestle and an overhead passenger loading ramp would connect to the second story of a new passenger building. First Street would be realigned and extended as a four-lane roadway from SR 525 to the Mount Baker Terminal in the city of Everett. The alternative also includes modified intersections and a modification to the Sound Transit Mukilteo Station. The Elliot Point 2 Alternative would relocate the ferry terminal to the western portion of the tank farm site and the ferry slip would be closer to the shore. Passenger and maintenance buildings would be on land. Costs are estimated in 2015 dollars at $60 to $65 million for the No Build Alternative, $130 to $140 million for Existing Site Improvements, $150 to $165 million for Elliot Point 1, and $120 to $130 million for Elliot Point 2. Each estimate includes costs for construction, right-of-way costs and engineering. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: reduce conflicts, congestion, and safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles; improve the safety, security, and reliability of ferry operations; offer better and safer connections to buses and commuter rail; and accommodate future demand. Removal of creosote-treated piles at the existing facility, the fishing pier, and the tank farm pier would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In-water construction, pier removal, and dredging would have ecosystem impacts. The project area includes several important historic and archaeological sites, including a buried shell midden created by Native American peoples, with deposits dating back over 1,000 years. Mitigation would be required for temporary impacts to the fishing pier, impacts on the public shoreline access area, and impacts on archaeological sites. Although the removal of the tank farm pier would have long-term beneficial impacts, in-water construction activity under the Elliot Point alternatives would have more potential impacts to ecosystems, particularly if any contaminated sediments are encountered. By 2040, vehicle queues on SR 525 are projected to increase for the No Build, Existing Site Improvements, and Elliot Point 2 alternatives compared to what is seen today. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120015, Executive Summary--48 pages, Draft EIS--390 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--420 pages on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 33 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Ferries KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Possession Sound KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743054?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 7 of 33] T2 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1012743050; 15213-5_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the facilities serving the mainland terminus of the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route in the cities of Mukilteo and Everett, Snohomish County, Washington are proposed. The ferry route is part of State Route (SR) 525, the major transportation corridor across Possession Sound, which separates Island County (Whidbey Island) from the central Puget Sound mainland. The route is the second-busiest in terms of vehicle traffic in the state ferry system, and it has the third-largest annual ridership. The Mukilteo terminal has not had significant improvements since the early 1980s and components of the facility are aging. The current terminal layout makes it difficult for passengers to get in and out of the terminal and contributes to traffic congestion, safety concerns and conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This draft EIS evaluates four alternatives to upgrade or replace the Mukilteo ferry terminal. Two alternatives would preserve or improve the existing terminal and two alternatives would relocate the terminal to the tank farm east of the existing site. The Mukilteo tank farm, which includes a large pier, is a site with past contamination issues, many of which have been addressed by the Air Force. The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing ferry terminal at a functional level. The build alternatives have the following components in common: one operational ferry slip; a new multi-bay transit area; a pick-up/drop-off area; and holding lanes with dedicated staging for bicycles, carpools and priority vehicles. Under the Existing Site Improvements Alternative, the current terminal would be replaced with a facility at the current site. The Elliot Point 1 Alternative would relocate the Mukilteo ferry terminal to the eastern portion of the tank farm property. Because the shoreline slopes gradually in this location, the ferry slip would be located about 250 feet offshore, requiring a longer pier. A new passenger building and a maintenance building would be located overwater upon a new concrete trestle and an overhead passenger loading ramp would connect to the second story of a new passenger building. First Street would be realigned and extended as a four-lane roadway from SR 525 to the Mount Baker Terminal in the city of Everett. The alternative also includes modified intersections and a modification to the Sound Transit Mukilteo Station. The Elliot Point 2 Alternative would relocate the ferry terminal to the western portion of the tank farm site and the ferry slip would be closer to the shore. Passenger and maintenance buildings would be on land. Costs are estimated in 2015 dollars at $60 to $65 million for the No Build Alternative, $130 to $140 million for Existing Site Improvements, $150 to $165 million for Elliot Point 1, and $120 to $130 million for Elliot Point 2. Each estimate includes costs for construction, right-of-way costs and engineering. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: reduce conflicts, congestion, and safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles; improve the safety, security, and reliability of ferry operations; offer better and safer connections to buses and commuter rail; and accommodate future demand. Removal of creosote-treated piles at the existing facility, the fishing pier, and the tank farm pier would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In-water construction, pier removal, and dredging would have ecosystem impacts. The project area includes several important historic and archaeological sites, including a buried shell midden created by Native American peoples, with deposits dating back over 1,000 years. Mitigation would be required for temporary impacts to the fishing pier, impacts on the public shoreline access area, and impacts on archaeological sites. Although the removal of the tank farm pier would have long-term beneficial impacts, in-water construction activity under the Elliot Point alternatives would have more potential impacts to ecosystems, particularly if any contaminated sediments are encountered. By 2040, vehicle queues on SR 525 are projected to increase for the No Build, Existing Site Improvements, and Elliot Point 2 alternatives compared to what is seen today. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120015, Executive Summary--48 pages, Draft EIS--390 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--420 pages on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Ferries KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Possession Sound KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743050?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 32 of 33] T2 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1012743043; 15213-5_0032 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the facilities serving the mainland terminus of the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route in the cities of Mukilteo and Everett, Snohomish County, Washington are proposed. The ferry route is part of State Route (SR) 525, the major transportation corridor across Possession Sound, which separates Island County (Whidbey Island) from the central Puget Sound mainland. The route is the second-busiest in terms of vehicle traffic in the state ferry system, and it has the third-largest annual ridership. The Mukilteo terminal has not had significant improvements since the early 1980s and components of the facility are aging. The current terminal layout makes it difficult for passengers to get in and out of the terminal and contributes to traffic congestion, safety concerns and conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This draft EIS evaluates four alternatives to upgrade or replace the Mukilteo ferry terminal. Two alternatives would preserve or improve the existing terminal and two alternatives would relocate the terminal to the tank farm east of the existing site. The Mukilteo tank farm, which includes a large pier, is a site with past contamination issues, many of which have been addressed by the Air Force. The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing ferry terminal at a functional level. The build alternatives have the following components in common: one operational ferry slip; a new multi-bay transit area; a pick-up/drop-off area; and holding lanes with dedicated staging for bicycles, carpools and priority vehicles. Under the Existing Site Improvements Alternative, the current terminal would be replaced with a facility at the current site. The Elliot Point 1 Alternative would relocate the Mukilteo ferry terminal to the eastern portion of the tank farm property. Because the shoreline slopes gradually in this location, the ferry slip would be located about 250 feet offshore, requiring a longer pier. A new passenger building and a maintenance building would be located overwater upon a new concrete trestle and an overhead passenger loading ramp would connect to the second story of a new passenger building. First Street would be realigned and extended as a four-lane roadway from SR 525 to the Mount Baker Terminal in the city of Everett. The alternative also includes modified intersections and a modification to the Sound Transit Mukilteo Station. The Elliot Point 2 Alternative would relocate the ferry terminal to the western portion of the tank farm site and the ferry slip would be closer to the shore. Passenger and maintenance buildings would be on land. Costs are estimated in 2015 dollars at $60 to $65 million for the No Build Alternative, $130 to $140 million for Existing Site Improvements, $150 to $165 million for Elliot Point 1, and $120 to $130 million for Elliot Point 2. Each estimate includes costs for construction, right-of-way costs and engineering. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: reduce conflicts, congestion, and safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles; improve the safety, security, and reliability of ferry operations; offer better and safer connections to buses and commuter rail; and accommodate future demand. Removal of creosote-treated piles at the existing facility, the fishing pier, and the tank farm pier would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In-water construction, pier removal, and dredging would have ecosystem impacts. The project area includes several important historic and archaeological sites, including a buried shell midden created by Native American peoples, with deposits dating back over 1,000 years. Mitigation would be required for temporary impacts to the fishing pier, impacts on the public shoreline access area, and impacts on archaeological sites. Although the removal of the tank farm pier would have long-term beneficial impacts, in-water construction activity under the Elliot Point alternatives would have more potential impacts to ecosystems, particularly if any contaminated sediments are encountered. By 2040, vehicle queues on SR 525 are projected to increase for the No Build, Existing Site Improvements, and Elliot Point 2 alternatives compared to what is seen today. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120015, Executive Summary--48 pages, Draft EIS--390 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--420 pages on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 32 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Ferries KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Possession Sound KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743043?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 6 of 33] T2 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1012743039; 15213-5_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the facilities serving the mainland terminus of the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route in the cities of Mukilteo and Everett, Snohomish County, Washington are proposed. The ferry route is part of State Route (SR) 525, the major transportation corridor across Possession Sound, which separates Island County (Whidbey Island) from the central Puget Sound mainland. The route is the second-busiest in terms of vehicle traffic in the state ferry system, and it has the third-largest annual ridership. The Mukilteo terminal has not had significant improvements since the early 1980s and components of the facility are aging. The current terminal layout makes it difficult for passengers to get in and out of the terminal and contributes to traffic congestion, safety concerns and conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This draft EIS evaluates four alternatives to upgrade or replace the Mukilteo ferry terminal. Two alternatives would preserve or improve the existing terminal and two alternatives would relocate the terminal to the tank farm east of the existing site. The Mukilteo tank farm, which includes a large pier, is a site with past contamination issues, many of which have been addressed by the Air Force. The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing ferry terminal at a functional level. The build alternatives have the following components in common: one operational ferry slip; a new multi-bay transit area; a pick-up/drop-off area; and holding lanes with dedicated staging for bicycles, carpools and priority vehicles. Under the Existing Site Improvements Alternative, the current terminal would be replaced with a facility at the current site. The Elliot Point 1 Alternative would relocate the Mukilteo ferry terminal to the eastern portion of the tank farm property. Because the shoreline slopes gradually in this location, the ferry slip would be located about 250 feet offshore, requiring a longer pier. A new passenger building and a maintenance building would be located overwater upon a new concrete trestle and an overhead passenger loading ramp would connect to the second story of a new passenger building. First Street would be realigned and extended as a four-lane roadway from SR 525 to the Mount Baker Terminal in the city of Everett. The alternative also includes modified intersections and a modification to the Sound Transit Mukilteo Station. The Elliot Point 2 Alternative would relocate the ferry terminal to the western portion of the tank farm site and the ferry slip would be closer to the shore. Passenger and maintenance buildings would be on land. Costs are estimated in 2015 dollars at $60 to $65 million for the No Build Alternative, $130 to $140 million for Existing Site Improvements, $150 to $165 million for Elliot Point 1, and $120 to $130 million for Elliot Point 2. Each estimate includes costs for construction, right-of-way costs and engineering. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: reduce conflicts, congestion, and safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles; improve the safety, security, and reliability of ferry operations; offer better and safer connections to buses and commuter rail; and accommodate future demand. Removal of creosote-treated piles at the existing facility, the fishing pier, and the tank farm pier would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In-water construction, pier removal, and dredging would have ecosystem impacts. The project area includes several important historic and archaeological sites, including a buried shell midden created by Native American peoples, with deposits dating back over 1,000 years. Mitigation would be required for temporary impacts to the fishing pier, impacts on the public shoreline access area, and impacts on archaeological sites. Although the removal of the tank farm pier would have long-term beneficial impacts, in-water construction activity under the Elliot Point alternatives would have more potential impacts to ecosystems, particularly if any contaminated sediments are encountered. By 2040, vehicle queues on SR 525 are projected to increase for the No Build, Existing Site Improvements, and Elliot Point 2 alternatives compared to what is seen today. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120015, Executive Summary--48 pages, Draft EIS--390 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--420 pages on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Ferries KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Possession Sound KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743039?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 14 of 33] T2 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1012743030; 15213-5_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the facilities serving the mainland terminus of the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route in the cities of Mukilteo and Everett, Snohomish County, Washington are proposed. The ferry route is part of State Route (SR) 525, the major transportation corridor across Possession Sound, which separates Island County (Whidbey Island) from the central Puget Sound mainland. The route is the second-busiest in terms of vehicle traffic in the state ferry system, and it has the third-largest annual ridership. The Mukilteo terminal has not had significant improvements since the early 1980s and components of the facility are aging. The current terminal layout makes it difficult for passengers to get in and out of the terminal and contributes to traffic congestion, safety concerns and conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This draft EIS evaluates four alternatives to upgrade or replace the Mukilteo ferry terminal. Two alternatives would preserve or improve the existing terminal and two alternatives would relocate the terminal to the tank farm east of the existing site. The Mukilteo tank farm, which includes a large pier, is a site with past contamination issues, many of which have been addressed by the Air Force. The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing ferry terminal at a functional level. The build alternatives have the following components in common: one operational ferry slip; a new multi-bay transit area; a pick-up/drop-off area; and holding lanes with dedicated staging for bicycles, carpools and priority vehicles. Under the Existing Site Improvements Alternative, the current terminal would be replaced with a facility at the current site. The Elliot Point 1 Alternative would relocate the Mukilteo ferry terminal to the eastern portion of the tank farm property. Because the shoreline slopes gradually in this location, the ferry slip would be located about 250 feet offshore, requiring a longer pier. A new passenger building and a maintenance building would be located overwater upon a new concrete trestle and an overhead passenger loading ramp would connect to the second story of a new passenger building. First Street would be realigned and extended as a four-lane roadway from SR 525 to the Mount Baker Terminal in the city of Everett. The alternative also includes modified intersections and a modification to the Sound Transit Mukilteo Station. The Elliot Point 2 Alternative would relocate the ferry terminal to the western portion of the tank farm site and the ferry slip would be closer to the shore. Passenger and maintenance buildings would be on land. Costs are estimated in 2015 dollars at $60 to $65 million for the No Build Alternative, $130 to $140 million for Existing Site Improvements, $150 to $165 million for Elliot Point 1, and $120 to $130 million for Elliot Point 2. Each estimate includes costs for construction, right-of-way costs and engineering. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: reduce conflicts, congestion, and safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles; improve the safety, security, and reliability of ferry operations; offer better and safer connections to buses and commuter rail; and accommodate future demand. Removal of creosote-treated piles at the existing facility, the fishing pier, and the tank farm pier would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In-water construction, pier removal, and dredging would have ecosystem impacts. The project area includes several important historic and archaeological sites, including a buried shell midden created by Native American peoples, with deposits dating back over 1,000 years. Mitigation would be required for temporary impacts to the fishing pier, impacts on the public shoreline access area, and impacts on archaeological sites. Although the removal of the tank farm pier would have long-term beneficial impacts, in-water construction activity under the Elliot Point alternatives would have more potential impacts to ecosystems, particularly if any contaminated sediments are encountered. By 2040, vehicle queues on SR 525 are projected to increase for the No Build, Existing Site Improvements, and Elliot Point 2 alternatives compared to what is seen today. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120015, Executive Summary--48 pages, Draft EIS--390 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--420 pages on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Ferries KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Possession Sound KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743030?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 5 of 33] T2 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1012743000; 15213-5_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the facilities serving the mainland terminus of the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route in the cities of Mukilteo and Everett, Snohomish County, Washington are proposed. The ferry route is part of State Route (SR) 525, the major transportation corridor across Possession Sound, which separates Island County (Whidbey Island) from the central Puget Sound mainland. The route is the second-busiest in terms of vehicle traffic in the state ferry system, and it has the third-largest annual ridership. The Mukilteo terminal has not had significant improvements since the early 1980s and components of the facility are aging. The current terminal layout makes it difficult for passengers to get in and out of the terminal and contributes to traffic congestion, safety concerns and conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This draft EIS evaluates four alternatives to upgrade or replace the Mukilteo ferry terminal. Two alternatives would preserve or improve the existing terminal and two alternatives would relocate the terminal to the tank farm east of the existing site. The Mukilteo tank farm, which includes a large pier, is a site with past contamination issues, many of which have been addressed by the Air Force. The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing ferry terminal at a functional level. The build alternatives have the following components in common: one operational ferry slip; a new multi-bay transit area; a pick-up/drop-off area; and holding lanes with dedicated staging for bicycles, carpools and priority vehicles. Under the Existing Site Improvements Alternative, the current terminal would be replaced with a facility at the current site. The Elliot Point 1 Alternative would relocate the Mukilteo ferry terminal to the eastern portion of the tank farm property. Because the shoreline slopes gradually in this location, the ferry slip would be located about 250 feet offshore, requiring a longer pier. A new passenger building and a maintenance building would be located overwater upon a new concrete trestle and an overhead passenger loading ramp would connect to the second story of a new passenger building. First Street would be realigned and extended as a four-lane roadway from SR 525 to the Mount Baker Terminal in the city of Everett. The alternative also includes modified intersections and a modification to the Sound Transit Mukilteo Station. The Elliot Point 2 Alternative would relocate the ferry terminal to the western portion of the tank farm site and the ferry slip would be closer to the shore. Passenger and maintenance buildings would be on land. Costs are estimated in 2015 dollars at $60 to $65 million for the No Build Alternative, $130 to $140 million for Existing Site Improvements, $150 to $165 million for Elliot Point 1, and $120 to $130 million for Elliot Point 2. Each estimate includes costs for construction, right-of-way costs and engineering. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: reduce conflicts, congestion, and safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles; improve the safety, security, and reliability of ferry operations; offer better and safer connections to buses and commuter rail; and accommodate future demand. Removal of creosote-treated piles at the existing facility, the fishing pier, and the tank farm pier would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In-water construction, pier removal, and dredging would have ecosystem impacts. The project area includes several important historic and archaeological sites, including a buried shell midden created by Native American peoples, with deposits dating back over 1,000 years. Mitigation would be required for temporary impacts to the fishing pier, impacts on the public shoreline access area, and impacts on archaeological sites. Although the removal of the tank farm pier would have long-term beneficial impacts, in-water construction activity under the Elliot Point alternatives would have more potential impacts to ecosystems, particularly if any contaminated sediments are encountered. By 2040, vehicle queues on SR 525 are projected to increase for the No Build, Existing Site Improvements, and Elliot Point 2 alternatives compared to what is seen today. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120015, Executive Summary--48 pages, Draft EIS--390 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--420 pages on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Ferries KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Possession Sound KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743000?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 24 of 33] T2 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1012742824; 15213-5_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the facilities serving the mainland terminus of the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route in the cities of Mukilteo and Everett, Snohomish County, Washington are proposed. The ferry route is part of State Route (SR) 525, the major transportation corridor across Possession Sound, which separates Island County (Whidbey Island) from the central Puget Sound mainland. The route is the second-busiest in terms of vehicle traffic in the state ferry system, and it has the third-largest annual ridership. The Mukilteo terminal has not had significant improvements since the early 1980s and components of the facility are aging. The current terminal layout makes it difficult for passengers to get in and out of the terminal and contributes to traffic congestion, safety concerns and conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This draft EIS evaluates four alternatives to upgrade or replace the Mukilteo ferry terminal. Two alternatives would preserve or improve the existing terminal and two alternatives would relocate the terminal to the tank farm east of the existing site. The Mukilteo tank farm, which includes a large pier, is a site with past contamination issues, many of which have been addressed by the Air Force. The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing ferry terminal at a functional level. The build alternatives have the following components in common: one operational ferry slip; a new multi-bay transit area; a pick-up/drop-off area; and holding lanes with dedicated staging for bicycles, carpools and priority vehicles. Under the Existing Site Improvements Alternative, the current terminal would be replaced with a facility at the current site. The Elliot Point 1 Alternative would relocate the Mukilteo ferry terminal to the eastern portion of the tank farm property. Because the shoreline slopes gradually in this location, the ferry slip would be located about 250 feet offshore, requiring a longer pier. A new passenger building and a maintenance building would be located overwater upon a new concrete trestle and an overhead passenger loading ramp would connect to the second story of a new passenger building. First Street would be realigned and extended as a four-lane roadway from SR 525 to the Mount Baker Terminal in the city of Everett. The alternative also includes modified intersections and a modification to the Sound Transit Mukilteo Station. The Elliot Point 2 Alternative would relocate the ferry terminal to the western portion of the tank farm site and the ferry slip would be closer to the shore. Passenger and maintenance buildings would be on land. Costs are estimated in 2015 dollars at $60 to $65 million for the No Build Alternative, $130 to $140 million for Existing Site Improvements, $150 to $165 million for Elliot Point 1, and $120 to $130 million for Elliot Point 2. Each estimate includes costs for construction, right-of-way costs and engineering. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: reduce conflicts, congestion, and safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles; improve the safety, security, and reliability of ferry operations; offer better and safer connections to buses and commuter rail; and accommodate future demand. Removal of creosote-treated piles at the existing facility, the fishing pier, and the tank farm pier would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In-water construction, pier removal, and dredging would have ecosystem impacts. The project area includes several important historic and archaeological sites, including a buried shell midden created by Native American peoples, with deposits dating back over 1,000 years. Mitigation would be required for temporary impacts to the fishing pier, impacts on the public shoreline access area, and impacts on archaeological sites. Although the removal of the tank farm pier would have long-term beneficial impacts, in-water construction activity under the Elliot Point alternatives would have more potential impacts to ecosystems, particularly if any contaminated sediments are encountered. By 2040, vehicle queues on SR 525 are projected to increase for the No Build, Existing Site Improvements, and Elliot Point 2 alternatives compared to what is seen today. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120015, Executive Summary--48 pages, Draft EIS--390 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--420 pages on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Ferries KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Possession Sound KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742824?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DICKSON+SOUTHWEST+BYPASS+FROM+SR-1+%28US+70%29+WEST+OF+DICKSON%2C+TO+SR-46+AND%2FOR+I-40+SOUTH+OF+DICKSON%2C+DICKSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=DICKSON+SOUTHWEST+BYPASS+FROM+SR-1+%28US+70%29+WEST+OF+DICKSON%2C+TO+SR-46+AND%2FOR+I-40+SOUTH+OF+DICKSON%2C+DICKSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 23 of 33] T2 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1012742812; 15213-5_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the facilities serving the mainland terminus of the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route in the cities of Mukilteo and Everett, Snohomish County, Washington are proposed. The ferry route is part of State Route (SR) 525, the major transportation corridor across Possession Sound, which separates Island County (Whidbey Island) from the central Puget Sound mainland. The route is the second-busiest in terms of vehicle traffic in the state ferry system, and it has the third-largest annual ridership. The Mukilteo terminal has not had significant improvements since the early 1980s and components of the facility are aging. The current terminal layout makes it difficult for passengers to get in and out of the terminal and contributes to traffic congestion, safety concerns and conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This draft EIS evaluates four alternatives to upgrade or replace the Mukilteo ferry terminal. Two alternatives would preserve or improve the existing terminal and two alternatives would relocate the terminal to the tank farm east of the existing site. The Mukilteo tank farm, which includes a large pier, is a site with past contamination issues, many of which have been addressed by the Air Force. The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing ferry terminal at a functional level. The build alternatives have the following components in common: one operational ferry slip; a new multi-bay transit area; a pick-up/drop-off area; and holding lanes with dedicated staging for bicycles, carpools and priority vehicles. Under the Existing Site Improvements Alternative, the current terminal would be replaced with a facility at the current site. The Elliot Point 1 Alternative would relocate the Mukilteo ferry terminal to the eastern portion of the tank farm property. Because the shoreline slopes gradually in this location, the ferry slip would be located about 250 feet offshore, requiring a longer pier. A new passenger building and a maintenance building would be located overwater upon a new concrete trestle and an overhead passenger loading ramp would connect to the second story of a new passenger building. First Street would be realigned and extended as a four-lane roadway from SR 525 to the Mount Baker Terminal in the city of Everett. The alternative also includes modified intersections and a modification to the Sound Transit Mukilteo Station. The Elliot Point 2 Alternative would relocate the ferry terminal to the western portion of the tank farm site and the ferry slip would be closer to the shore. Passenger and maintenance buildings would be on land. Costs are estimated in 2015 dollars at $60 to $65 million for the No Build Alternative, $130 to $140 million for Existing Site Improvements, $150 to $165 million for Elliot Point 1, and $120 to $130 million for Elliot Point 2. Each estimate includes costs for construction, right-of-way costs and engineering. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: reduce conflicts, congestion, and safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles; improve the safety, security, and reliability of ferry operations; offer better and safer connections to buses and commuter rail; and accommodate future demand. Removal of creosote-treated piles at the existing facility, the fishing pier, and the tank farm pier would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In-water construction, pier removal, and dredging would have ecosystem impacts. The project area includes several important historic and archaeological sites, including a buried shell midden created by Native American peoples, with deposits dating back over 1,000 years. Mitigation would be required for temporary impacts to the fishing pier, impacts on the public shoreline access area, and impacts on archaeological sites. Although the removal of the tank farm pier would have long-term beneficial impacts, in-water construction activity under the Elliot Point alternatives would have more potential impacts to ecosystems, particularly if any contaminated sediments are encountered. By 2040, vehicle queues on SR 525 are projected to increase for the No Build, Existing Site Improvements, and Elliot Point 2 alternatives compared to what is seen today. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120015, Executive Summary--48 pages, Draft EIS--390 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--420 pages on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Ferries KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Possession Sound KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742812?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHASE+3+OF+THE+RECLAMATION+DISTRICT+17+100-YEAR+LEVEE+SEEPAGE+AREA+PROJECT%2C+SAN+JOAQUIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PHASE+3+OF+THE+RECLAMATION+DISTRICT+17+100-YEAR+LEVEE+SEEPAGE+AREA+PROJECT%2C+SAN+JOAQUIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 22 of 33] T2 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1012742798; 15213-5_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the facilities serving the mainland terminus of the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route in the cities of Mukilteo and Everett, Snohomish County, Washington are proposed. The ferry route is part of State Route (SR) 525, the major transportation corridor across Possession Sound, which separates Island County (Whidbey Island) from the central Puget Sound mainland. The route is the second-busiest in terms of vehicle traffic in the state ferry system, and it has the third-largest annual ridership. The Mukilteo terminal has not had significant improvements since the early 1980s and components of the facility are aging. The current terminal layout makes it difficult for passengers to get in and out of the terminal and contributes to traffic congestion, safety concerns and conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This draft EIS evaluates four alternatives to upgrade or replace the Mukilteo ferry terminal. Two alternatives would preserve or improve the existing terminal and two alternatives would relocate the terminal to the tank farm east of the existing site. The Mukilteo tank farm, which includes a large pier, is a site with past contamination issues, many of which have been addressed by the Air Force. The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing ferry terminal at a functional level. The build alternatives have the following components in common: one operational ferry slip; a new multi-bay transit area; a pick-up/drop-off area; and holding lanes with dedicated staging for bicycles, carpools and priority vehicles. Under the Existing Site Improvements Alternative, the current terminal would be replaced with a facility at the current site. The Elliot Point 1 Alternative would relocate the Mukilteo ferry terminal to the eastern portion of the tank farm property. Because the shoreline slopes gradually in this location, the ferry slip would be located about 250 feet offshore, requiring a longer pier. A new passenger building and a maintenance building would be located overwater upon a new concrete trestle and an overhead passenger loading ramp would connect to the second story of a new passenger building. First Street would be realigned and extended as a four-lane roadway from SR 525 to the Mount Baker Terminal in the city of Everett. The alternative also includes modified intersections and a modification to the Sound Transit Mukilteo Station. The Elliot Point 2 Alternative would relocate the ferry terminal to the western portion of the tank farm site and the ferry slip would be closer to the shore. Passenger and maintenance buildings would be on land. Costs are estimated in 2015 dollars at $60 to $65 million for the No Build Alternative, $130 to $140 million for Existing Site Improvements, $150 to $165 million for Elliot Point 1, and $120 to $130 million for Elliot Point 2. Each estimate includes costs for construction, right-of-way costs and engineering. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: reduce conflicts, congestion, and safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles; improve the safety, security, and reliability of ferry operations; offer better and safer connections to buses and commuter rail; and accommodate future demand. Removal of creosote-treated piles at the existing facility, the fishing pier, and the tank farm pier would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In-water construction, pier removal, and dredging would have ecosystem impacts. The project area includes several important historic and archaeological sites, including a buried shell midden created by Native American peoples, with deposits dating back over 1,000 years. Mitigation would be required for temporary impacts to the fishing pier, impacts on the public shoreline access area, and impacts on archaeological sites. Although the removal of the tank farm pier would have long-term beneficial impacts, in-water construction activity under the Elliot Point alternatives would have more potential impacts to ecosystems, particularly if any contaminated sediments are encountered. By 2040, vehicle queues on SR 525 are projected to increase for the No Build, Existing Site Improvements, and Elliot Point 2 alternatives compared to what is seen today. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120015, Executive Summary--48 pages, Draft EIS--390 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--420 pages on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Ferries KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Possession Sound KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742798?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 21 of 33] T2 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1012742788; 15213-5_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the facilities serving the mainland terminus of the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route in the cities of Mukilteo and Everett, Snohomish County, Washington are proposed. The ferry route is part of State Route (SR) 525, the major transportation corridor across Possession Sound, which separates Island County (Whidbey Island) from the central Puget Sound mainland. The route is the second-busiest in terms of vehicle traffic in the state ferry system, and it has the third-largest annual ridership. The Mukilteo terminal has not had significant improvements since the early 1980s and components of the facility are aging. The current terminal layout makes it difficult for passengers to get in and out of the terminal and contributes to traffic congestion, safety concerns and conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This draft EIS evaluates four alternatives to upgrade or replace the Mukilteo ferry terminal. Two alternatives would preserve or improve the existing terminal and two alternatives would relocate the terminal to the tank farm east of the existing site. The Mukilteo tank farm, which includes a large pier, is a site with past contamination issues, many of which have been addressed by the Air Force. The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing ferry terminal at a functional level. The build alternatives have the following components in common: one operational ferry slip; a new multi-bay transit area; a pick-up/drop-off area; and holding lanes with dedicated staging for bicycles, carpools and priority vehicles. Under the Existing Site Improvements Alternative, the current terminal would be replaced with a facility at the current site. The Elliot Point 1 Alternative would relocate the Mukilteo ferry terminal to the eastern portion of the tank farm property. Because the shoreline slopes gradually in this location, the ferry slip would be located about 250 feet offshore, requiring a longer pier. A new passenger building and a maintenance building would be located overwater upon a new concrete trestle and an overhead passenger loading ramp would connect to the second story of a new passenger building. First Street would be realigned and extended as a four-lane roadway from SR 525 to the Mount Baker Terminal in the city of Everett. The alternative also includes modified intersections and a modification to the Sound Transit Mukilteo Station. The Elliot Point 2 Alternative would relocate the ferry terminal to the western portion of the tank farm site and the ferry slip would be closer to the shore. Passenger and maintenance buildings would be on land. Costs are estimated in 2015 dollars at $60 to $65 million for the No Build Alternative, $130 to $140 million for Existing Site Improvements, $150 to $165 million for Elliot Point 1, and $120 to $130 million for Elliot Point 2. Each estimate includes costs for construction, right-of-way costs and engineering. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: reduce conflicts, congestion, and safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles; improve the safety, security, and reliability of ferry operations; offer better and safer connections to buses and commuter rail; and accommodate future demand. Removal of creosote-treated piles at the existing facility, the fishing pier, and the tank farm pier would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In-water construction, pier removal, and dredging would have ecosystem impacts. The project area includes several important historic and archaeological sites, including a buried shell midden created by Native American peoples, with deposits dating back over 1,000 years. Mitigation would be required for temporary impacts to the fishing pier, impacts on the public shoreline access area, and impacts on archaeological sites. Although the removal of the tank farm pier would have long-term beneficial impacts, in-water construction activity under the Elliot Point alternatives would have more potential impacts to ecosystems, particularly if any contaminated sediments are encountered. By 2040, vehicle queues on SR 525 are projected to increase for the No Build, Existing Site Improvements, and Elliot Point 2 alternatives compared to what is seen today. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120015, Executive Summary--48 pages, Draft EIS--390 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--420 pages on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Ferries KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Possession Sound KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742788?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 25 of 33] T2 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1012742776; 15213-5_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the facilities serving the mainland terminus of the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route in the cities of Mukilteo and Everett, Snohomish County, Washington are proposed. The ferry route is part of State Route (SR) 525, the major transportation corridor across Possession Sound, which separates Island County (Whidbey Island) from the central Puget Sound mainland. The route is the second-busiest in terms of vehicle traffic in the state ferry system, and it has the third-largest annual ridership. The Mukilteo terminal has not had significant improvements since the early 1980s and components of the facility are aging. The current terminal layout makes it difficult for passengers to get in and out of the terminal and contributes to traffic congestion, safety concerns and conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This draft EIS evaluates four alternatives to upgrade or replace the Mukilteo ferry terminal. Two alternatives would preserve or improve the existing terminal and two alternatives would relocate the terminal to the tank farm east of the existing site. The Mukilteo tank farm, which includes a large pier, is a site with past contamination issues, many of which have been addressed by the Air Force. The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing ferry terminal at a functional level. The build alternatives have the following components in common: one operational ferry slip; a new multi-bay transit area; a pick-up/drop-off area; and holding lanes with dedicated staging for bicycles, carpools and priority vehicles. Under the Existing Site Improvements Alternative, the current terminal would be replaced with a facility at the current site. The Elliot Point 1 Alternative would relocate the Mukilteo ferry terminal to the eastern portion of the tank farm property. Because the shoreline slopes gradually in this location, the ferry slip would be located about 250 feet offshore, requiring a longer pier. A new passenger building and a maintenance building would be located overwater upon a new concrete trestle and an overhead passenger loading ramp would connect to the second story of a new passenger building. First Street would be realigned and extended as a four-lane roadway from SR 525 to the Mount Baker Terminal in the city of Everett. The alternative also includes modified intersections and a modification to the Sound Transit Mukilteo Station. The Elliot Point 2 Alternative would relocate the ferry terminal to the western portion of the tank farm site and the ferry slip would be closer to the shore. Passenger and maintenance buildings would be on land. Costs are estimated in 2015 dollars at $60 to $65 million for the No Build Alternative, $130 to $140 million for Existing Site Improvements, $150 to $165 million for Elliot Point 1, and $120 to $130 million for Elliot Point 2. Each estimate includes costs for construction, right-of-way costs and engineering. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: reduce conflicts, congestion, and safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles; improve the safety, security, and reliability of ferry operations; offer better and safer connections to buses and commuter rail; and accommodate future demand. Removal of creosote-treated piles at the existing facility, the fishing pier, and the tank farm pier would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In-water construction, pier removal, and dredging would have ecosystem impacts. The project area includes several important historic and archaeological sites, including a buried shell midden created by Native American peoples, with deposits dating back over 1,000 years. Mitigation would be required for temporary impacts to the fishing pier, impacts on the public shoreline access area, and impacts on archaeological sites. Although the removal of the tank farm pier would have long-term beneficial impacts, in-water construction activity under the Elliot Point alternatives would have more potential impacts to ecosystems, particularly if any contaminated sediments are encountered. By 2040, vehicle queues on SR 525 are projected to increase for the No Build, Existing Site Improvements, and Elliot Point 2 alternatives compared to what is seen today. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120015, Executive Summary--48 pages, Draft EIS--390 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--420 pages on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Ferries KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Possession Sound KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742776?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 13 of 33] T2 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1012742763; 15213-5_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the facilities serving the mainland terminus of the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route in the cities of Mukilteo and Everett, Snohomish County, Washington are proposed. The ferry route is part of State Route (SR) 525, the major transportation corridor across Possession Sound, which separates Island County (Whidbey Island) from the central Puget Sound mainland. The route is the second-busiest in terms of vehicle traffic in the state ferry system, and it has the third-largest annual ridership. The Mukilteo terminal has not had significant improvements since the early 1980s and components of the facility are aging. The current terminal layout makes it difficult for passengers to get in and out of the terminal and contributes to traffic congestion, safety concerns and conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This draft EIS evaluates four alternatives to upgrade or replace the Mukilteo ferry terminal. Two alternatives would preserve or improve the existing terminal and two alternatives would relocate the terminal to the tank farm east of the existing site. The Mukilteo tank farm, which includes a large pier, is a site with past contamination issues, many of which have been addressed by the Air Force. The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing ferry terminal at a functional level. The build alternatives have the following components in common: one operational ferry slip; a new multi-bay transit area; a pick-up/drop-off area; and holding lanes with dedicated staging for bicycles, carpools and priority vehicles. Under the Existing Site Improvements Alternative, the current terminal would be replaced with a facility at the current site. The Elliot Point 1 Alternative would relocate the Mukilteo ferry terminal to the eastern portion of the tank farm property. Because the shoreline slopes gradually in this location, the ferry slip would be located about 250 feet offshore, requiring a longer pier. A new passenger building and a maintenance building would be located overwater upon a new concrete trestle and an overhead passenger loading ramp would connect to the second story of a new passenger building. First Street would be realigned and extended as a four-lane roadway from SR 525 to the Mount Baker Terminal in the city of Everett. The alternative also includes modified intersections and a modification to the Sound Transit Mukilteo Station. The Elliot Point 2 Alternative would relocate the ferry terminal to the western portion of the tank farm site and the ferry slip would be closer to the shore. Passenger and maintenance buildings would be on land. Costs are estimated in 2015 dollars at $60 to $65 million for the No Build Alternative, $130 to $140 million for Existing Site Improvements, $150 to $165 million for Elliot Point 1, and $120 to $130 million for Elliot Point 2. Each estimate includes costs for construction, right-of-way costs and engineering. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: reduce conflicts, congestion, and safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles; improve the safety, security, and reliability of ferry operations; offer better and safer connections to buses and commuter rail; and accommodate future demand. Removal of creosote-treated piles at the existing facility, the fishing pier, and the tank farm pier would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In-water construction, pier removal, and dredging would have ecosystem impacts. The project area includes several important historic and archaeological sites, including a buried shell midden created by Native American peoples, with deposits dating back over 1,000 years. Mitigation would be required for temporary impacts to the fishing pier, impacts on the public shoreline access area, and impacts on archaeological sites. Although the removal of the tank farm pier would have long-term beneficial impacts, in-water construction activity under the Elliot Point alternatives would have more potential impacts to ecosystems, particularly if any contaminated sediments are encountered. By 2040, vehicle queues on SR 525 are projected to increase for the No Build, Existing Site Improvements, and Elliot Point 2 alternatives compared to what is seen today. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120015, Executive Summary--48 pages, Draft EIS--390 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--420 pages on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Ferries KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Possession Sound KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742763?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 12 of 33] T2 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1012742745; 15213-5_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the facilities serving the mainland terminus of the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route in the cities of Mukilteo and Everett, Snohomish County, Washington are proposed. The ferry route is part of State Route (SR) 525, the major transportation corridor across Possession Sound, which separates Island County (Whidbey Island) from the central Puget Sound mainland. The route is the second-busiest in terms of vehicle traffic in the state ferry system, and it has the third-largest annual ridership. The Mukilteo terminal has not had significant improvements since the early 1980s and components of the facility are aging. The current terminal layout makes it difficult for passengers to get in and out of the terminal and contributes to traffic congestion, safety concerns and conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This draft EIS evaluates four alternatives to upgrade or replace the Mukilteo ferry terminal. Two alternatives would preserve or improve the existing terminal and two alternatives would relocate the terminal to the tank farm east of the existing site. The Mukilteo tank farm, which includes a large pier, is a site with past contamination issues, many of which have been addressed by the Air Force. The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing ferry terminal at a functional level. The build alternatives have the following components in common: one operational ferry slip; a new multi-bay transit area; a pick-up/drop-off area; and holding lanes with dedicated staging for bicycles, carpools and priority vehicles. Under the Existing Site Improvements Alternative, the current terminal would be replaced with a facility at the current site. The Elliot Point 1 Alternative would relocate the Mukilteo ferry terminal to the eastern portion of the tank farm property. Because the shoreline slopes gradually in this location, the ferry slip would be located about 250 feet offshore, requiring a longer pier. A new passenger building and a maintenance building would be located overwater upon a new concrete trestle and an overhead passenger loading ramp would connect to the second story of a new passenger building. First Street would be realigned and extended as a four-lane roadway from SR 525 to the Mount Baker Terminal in the city of Everett. The alternative also includes modified intersections and a modification to the Sound Transit Mukilteo Station. The Elliot Point 2 Alternative would relocate the ferry terminal to the western portion of the tank farm site and the ferry slip would be closer to the shore. Passenger and maintenance buildings would be on land. Costs are estimated in 2015 dollars at $60 to $65 million for the No Build Alternative, $130 to $140 million for Existing Site Improvements, $150 to $165 million for Elliot Point 1, and $120 to $130 million for Elliot Point 2. Each estimate includes costs for construction, right-of-way costs and engineering. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: reduce conflicts, congestion, and safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles; improve the safety, security, and reliability of ferry operations; offer better and safer connections to buses and commuter rail; and accommodate future demand. Removal of creosote-treated piles at the existing facility, the fishing pier, and the tank farm pier would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In-water construction, pier removal, and dredging would have ecosystem impacts. The project area includes several important historic and archaeological sites, including a buried shell midden created by Native American peoples, with deposits dating back over 1,000 years. Mitigation would be required for temporary impacts to the fishing pier, impacts on the public shoreline access area, and impacts on archaeological sites. Although the removal of the tank farm pier would have long-term beneficial impacts, in-water construction activity under the Elliot Point alternatives would have more potential impacts to ecosystems, particularly if any contaminated sediments are encountered. By 2040, vehicle queues on SR 525 are projected to increase for the No Build, Existing Site Improvements, and Elliot Point 2 alternatives compared to what is seen today. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120015, Executive Summary--48 pages, Draft EIS--390 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--420 pages on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Ferries KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Possession Sound KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742745?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 11 of 33] T2 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1012742731; 15213-5_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the facilities serving the mainland terminus of the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route in the cities of Mukilteo and Everett, Snohomish County, Washington are proposed. The ferry route is part of State Route (SR) 525, the major transportation corridor across Possession Sound, which separates Island County (Whidbey Island) from the central Puget Sound mainland. The route is the second-busiest in terms of vehicle traffic in the state ferry system, and it has the third-largest annual ridership. The Mukilteo terminal has not had significant improvements since the early 1980s and components of the facility are aging. The current terminal layout makes it difficult for passengers to get in and out of the terminal and contributes to traffic congestion, safety concerns and conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This draft EIS evaluates four alternatives to upgrade or replace the Mukilteo ferry terminal. Two alternatives would preserve or improve the existing terminal and two alternatives would relocate the terminal to the tank farm east of the existing site. The Mukilteo tank farm, which includes a large pier, is a site with past contamination issues, many of which have been addressed by the Air Force. The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing ferry terminal at a functional level. The build alternatives have the following components in common: one operational ferry slip; a new multi-bay transit area; a pick-up/drop-off area; and holding lanes with dedicated staging for bicycles, carpools and priority vehicles. Under the Existing Site Improvements Alternative, the current terminal would be replaced with a facility at the current site. The Elliot Point 1 Alternative would relocate the Mukilteo ferry terminal to the eastern portion of the tank farm property. Because the shoreline slopes gradually in this location, the ferry slip would be located about 250 feet offshore, requiring a longer pier. A new passenger building and a maintenance building would be located overwater upon a new concrete trestle and an overhead passenger loading ramp would connect to the second story of a new passenger building. First Street would be realigned and extended as a four-lane roadway from SR 525 to the Mount Baker Terminal in the city of Everett. The alternative also includes modified intersections and a modification to the Sound Transit Mukilteo Station. The Elliot Point 2 Alternative would relocate the ferry terminal to the western portion of the tank farm site and the ferry slip would be closer to the shore. Passenger and maintenance buildings would be on land. Costs are estimated in 2015 dollars at $60 to $65 million for the No Build Alternative, $130 to $140 million for Existing Site Improvements, $150 to $165 million for Elliot Point 1, and $120 to $130 million for Elliot Point 2. Each estimate includes costs for construction, right-of-way costs and engineering. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: reduce conflicts, congestion, and safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles; improve the safety, security, and reliability of ferry operations; offer better and safer connections to buses and commuter rail; and accommodate future demand. Removal of creosote-treated piles at the existing facility, the fishing pier, and the tank farm pier would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In-water construction, pier removal, and dredging would have ecosystem impacts. The project area includes several important historic and archaeological sites, including a buried shell midden created by Native American peoples, with deposits dating back over 1,000 years. Mitigation would be required for temporary impacts to the fishing pier, impacts on the public shoreline access area, and impacts on archaeological sites. Although the removal of the tank farm pier would have long-term beneficial impacts, in-water construction activity under the Elliot Point alternatives would have more potential impacts to ecosystems, particularly if any contaminated sediments are encountered. By 2040, vehicle queues on SR 525 are projected to increase for the No Build, Existing Site Improvements, and Elliot Point 2 alternatives compared to what is seen today. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120015, Executive Summary--48 pages, Draft EIS--390 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--420 pages on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Ferries KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Possession Sound KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742731?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 10 of 33] T2 - MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1012742714; 15213-5_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the facilities serving the mainland terminus of the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route in the cities of Mukilteo and Everett, Snohomish County, Washington are proposed. The ferry route is part of State Route (SR) 525, the major transportation corridor across Possession Sound, which separates Island County (Whidbey Island) from the central Puget Sound mainland. The route is the second-busiest in terms of vehicle traffic in the state ferry system, and it has the third-largest annual ridership. The Mukilteo terminal has not had significant improvements since the early 1980s and components of the facility are aging. The current terminal layout makes it difficult for passengers to get in and out of the terminal and contributes to traffic congestion, safety concerns and conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This draft EIS evaluates four alternatives to upgrade or replace the Mukilteo ferry terminal. Two alternatives would preserve or improve the existing terminal and two alternatives would relocate the terminal to the tank farm east of the existing site. The Mukilteo tank farm, which includes a large pier, is a site with past contamination issues, many of which have been addressed by the Air Force. The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing ferry terminal at a functional level. The build alternatives have the following components in common: one operational ferry slip; a new multi-bay transit area; a pick-up/drop-off area; and holding lanes with dedicated staging for bicycles, carpools and priority vehicles. Under the Existing Site Improvements Alternative, the current terminal would be replaced with a facility at the current site. The Elliot Point 1 Alternative would relocate the Mukilteo ferry terminal to the eastern portion of the tank farm property. Because the shoreline slopes gradually in this location, the ferry slip would be located about 250 feet offshore, requiring a longer pier. A new passenger building and a maintenance building would be located overwater upon a new concrete trestle and an overhead passenger loading ramp would connect to the second story of a new passenger building. First Street would be realigned and extended as a four-lane roadway from SR 525 to the Mount Baker Terminal in the city of Everett. The alternative also includes modified intersections and a modification to the Sound Transit Mukilteo Station. The Elliot Point 2 Alternative would relocate the ferry terminal to the western portion of the tank farm site and the ferry slip would be closer to the shore. Passenger and maintenance buildings would be on land. Costs are estimated in 2015 dollars at $60 to $65 million for the No Build Alternative, $130 to $140 million for Existing Site Improvements, $150 to $165 million for Elliot Point 1, and $120 to $130 million for Elliot Point 2. Each estimate includes costs for construction, right-of-way costs and engineering. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: reduce conflicts, congestion, and safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles; improve the safety, security, and reliability of ferry operations; offer better and safer connections to buses and commuter rail; and accommodate future demand. Removal of creosote-treated piles at the existing facility, the fishing pier, and the tank farm pier would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In-water construction, pier removal, and dredging would have ecosystem impacts. The project area includes several important historic and archaeological sites, including a buried shell midden created by Native American peoples, with deposits dating back over 1,000 years. Mitigation would be required for temporary impacts to the fishing pier, impacts on the public shoreline access area, and impacts on archaeological sites. Although the removal of the tank farm pier would have long-term beneficial impacts, in-water construction activity under the Elliot Point alternatives would have more potential impacts to ecosystems, particularly if any contaminated sediments are encountered. By 2040, vehicle queues on SR 525 are projected to increase for the No Build, Existing Site Improvements, and Elliot Point 2 alternatives compared to what is seen today. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120015, Executive Summary--48 pages, Draft EIS--390 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--420 pages on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Ferries KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Possession Sound KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742714?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=MUKILTEO+MULTIMODAL+PROJECT%2C+SNOHOMISH+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - The ICI-WARM Non-Proprietary Regional Frequency Analysis Tool Using the Method of L-Moments T2 - 21st Conference on Probability and Statistics AN - 1312998550; 6107121 JF - 21st Conference on Probability and Statistics AU - Giovannettone, Jason AU - Wright, M Y1 - 2012/01/22/ PY - 2012 DA - 2012 Jan 22 KW - frequency analysis KW - Frequency analysis UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312998550?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=21st+Conference+on+Probability+and+Statistics&rft.atitle=The+ICI-WARM+Non-Proprietary+Regional+Frequency+Analysis+Tool+Using+the+Method+of+L-Moments&rft.au=Giovannettone%2C+Jason%3BWright%2C+M&rft.aulast=Giovannettone&rft.aufirst=Jason&rft.date=2012-01-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2011+Annual+Meeting+of+the+American+Fisheries+Society+%28AFS+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - https://ams.confex.com/ams/92Annual/webprogram/21PROBSTAT.html LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - The ICI-WARM Non-Proprietary Regional Frequency Analysis Tool Using the Method of L-Moments T2 - Tenth Conference on Artificial and Computational Intelligence and its Applications to the Environmental Sciences AN - 1312992460; 6100683 JF - Tenth Conference on Artificial and Computational Intelligence and its Applications to the Environmental Sciences AU - Giovannettone, Jason AU - Wright, M Y1 - 2012/01/22/ PY - 2012 DA - 2012 Jan 22 KW - frequency analysis KW - Frequency analysis UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312992460?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=Tenth+Conference+on+Artificial+and+Computational+Intelligence+and+its+Applications+to+the+Environmental+Sciences&rft.atitle=The+ICI-WARM+Non-Proprietary+Regional+Frequency+Analysis+Tool+Using+the+Method+of+L-Moments&rft.au=Giovannettone%2C+Jason%3BWright%2C+M&rft.aulast=Giovannettone&rft.aufirst=Jason&rft.date=2012-01-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Tenth+Conference+on+Artificial+and+Computational+Intelligence+and+its+Applications+to+the+Environmental+Sciences&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - https://ams.confex.com/ams/92Annual/webprogram/10AI.html LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Numerical Simulation of Temperature and Stress Field Evolution Applied to Spark Plasma Sintering T2 - Computational Design, Modeling, and Simulation of Ceramics and Composites AN - 1312989722; 6102708 JF - Computational Design, Modeling, and Simulation of Ceramics and Composites AU - Allen, Jeffrey AU - Welch, Charles AU - Peters, John Y1 - 2012/01/22/ PY - 2012 DA - 2012 Jan 22 KW - Temperature effects KW - Stress KW - Simulation KW - Mathematical models KW - Evolution UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312989722?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=Computational+Design%2C+Modeling%2C+and+Simulation+of+Ceramics+and+Composites&rft.atitle=Numerical+Simulation+of+Temperature+and+Stress+Field+Evolution+Applied+to+Spark+Plasma+Sintering&rft.au=Allen%2C+Jeffrey%3BWelch%2C+Charles%3BPeters%2C+John&rft.aulast=Allen&rft.aufirst=Jeffrey&rft.date=2012-01-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Computational+Design%2C+Modeling%2C+and+Simulation+of+Ceramics+and+Composites&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://ceramics.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/focused-session-2.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 964164309; 15206 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/964164309?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2011+Annual+Meeting+of+the+American+Fisheries+Society+%28AFS+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-05 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 55 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743993; 15204-6_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 55 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743993?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2011+Annual+Meeting+of+the+American+Fisheries+Society+%28AFS+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 54 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743991; 15204-6_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 54 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743991?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 53 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743990; 15204-6_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 53 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743990?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 52 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743989; 15204-6_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 52 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743989?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 50 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743986; 15204-6_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 50 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743986?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 49 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743985; 15204-6_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 49 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743985?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 48 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743983; 15204-6_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 48 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743983?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 47 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743982; 15204-6_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 47 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743982?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 46 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743980; 15204-6_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 46 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743980?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 45 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743963; 15204-6_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 45 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743963?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 44 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743962; 15204-6_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 44 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743962?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 43 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743960; 15204-6_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 43 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743960?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 42 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743959; 15204-6_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 42 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743959?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 41 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743958; 15204-6_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 41 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743958?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 40 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743957; 15204-6_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 40 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743957?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 31 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743955; 15204-6_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 31 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743955?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 29 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743953; 15204-6_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 29 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743953?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 16 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743948; 15204-6_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743948?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 15 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743947; 15204-6_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743947?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 14 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743946; 15204-6_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743946?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 13 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743944; 15204-6_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743944?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 21 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743929; 15204-6_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743929?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 28 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743927; 15204-6_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743927?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 27 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743924; 15204-6_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743924?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 19 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743923; 15204-6_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743923?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 26 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743921; 15204-6_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743921?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 25 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743918; 15204-6_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743918?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 17 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743917; 15204-6_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743917?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 22 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743876; 15204-6_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743876?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 34 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743872; 15204-6_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 34 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743872?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 38 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743854; 15204-6_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 38 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743854?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 37 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743848; 15204-6_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 37 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743848?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 36 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743843; 15204-6_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 36 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743843?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 35 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743838; 15204-6_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 35 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743838?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 23 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743832; 15204-6_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743832?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 23 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012743272; 15206-8_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743272?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 11 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012743268; 15206-8_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743268?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 10 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012743264; 15206-8_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743264?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 9 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012743258; 15206-8_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743258?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 5 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012743252; 15206-8_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743252?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 4 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012743247; 15206-8_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743247?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 11 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743245; 15204-6_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743245?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 3 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012743241; 15206-8_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743241?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 2 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012743236; 15206-8_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743236?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 1 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012743231; 15206-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743231?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 1 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743082; 15204-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743082?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 10 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743077; 15204-6_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743077?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 9 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743068; 15204-6_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743068?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 8 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743056; 15204-6_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743056?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 7 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743041; 15204-6_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743041?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 5 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743029; 15204-6_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743029?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 22 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012742995; 15206-8_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742995?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 8 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012742986; 15206-8_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742986?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 7 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012742856; 15206-8_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742856?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 6 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012742848; 15206-8_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742848?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 3 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012742847; 15204-6_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742847?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 2 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012742835; 15204-6_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742835?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 21 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012742653; 15206-8_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742653?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 20 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012742642; 15206-8_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742642?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 19 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012742631; 15206-8_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742631?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 18 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012742617; 15206-8_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742617?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 17 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012742604; 15206-8_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742604?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 16 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012742590; 15206-8_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742590?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 15 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012742401; 15206-8_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742401?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 14 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012742386; 15206-8_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742386?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 13 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012742369; 15206-8_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742369?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 12 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012742356; 15206-8_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742356?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 7 of 10] T2 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 963637271; 15195-9_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The redistribution of freshwater flow to rehydrate coastal wetlands and reduce point source freshwater discharges into Biscayne Bay, Miami-Dade County, Florida is proposed. The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands (BBCW) Project aims to restore the overland sheetflow in up to an 11,000-acre area to improve the ecology of Biscayne Bay, including its freshwater and saltwater wetlands, nearshore bay habitat, marine nursery habitat, and the oyster reef community. Biscayne Bay is a shallow, saline coastal lagoon bordered on the west by mainland Florida and on the east by a series of barrier islands. Significant areas within the project boundary are characterized by a low-productivity dwarf mangrove forest which has expanded landward by an average of 0.9 miles since 1940. The study area includes the South Dade Wetlands, which form a contiguous habitat corridor with Everglades National Park, Biscayne National Park, Crocodile Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, the north Key Largo conservation and recreational land purchases, John Pennekamp State Park, and the National Marine Sanctuary. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative YB would include a footprint of 60,000 acres of land, nine pump stations, 35 culverts reconnecting wetlands, four stormwater treatment areas (STAs) covering 4,000 acres, 14 miles of spreader canals, seven miles of conveyance canals, backfilling of five miles of Military and North canals, and plugging 2,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative M would attempt to minimize both the number of features and project extent by relying on relatively small detention areas to capture and store water. It would focus the restoration effort on saltwater wetlands and the nearshore bay and would include a footprint of 6,561 acres of land, three pump stations, 40 culverts reconnecting wetlands, two STAs covering 200 acres, five miles of spreader canals, and plugging 500 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative Q would include a footprint of 19,035 acres of land, ten pump stations, 50 culverts reconnecting wetlands, one STA covering 200 acres, nine miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O, introduced as an intermediate plan between Alternative M and Alternative Q, would include a footprint of 11,312 acres of land, 13 pump stations, 20 culverts reconnecting wetlands, seven miles of spreader canals, one mile of conveyance canals, and plugging 8,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O Phase 1, a standalone increment of Alternative O, is the selected plan and involves a footprint of 3,761 acres of land, seven pump stations, 10 culverts reconnecting wetlands, three miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2,500 feet of mosquito control ditches. As of March 2011, the total cost of the selected plan is estimated at $191 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would contribute to the restoration of Biscayne Bay and adjacent wetlands as part of a comprehensive plan for restoring the South Florida ecosystem. The project would redistribute freshwater runoff from the watershed away from the existing canal discharges and into the coastal wetlands adjoining Biscayne Bay to provide a more natural and historic overland flow. This project would also help restore saltwater wetlands and the nearshore bay through the re-establishment of optimal salinity concentrations for fish and shellfish nursery habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Several known archaeological sites, including the Deering Estates, are within the BBCW project area and could be affected. Major uncertainties related to the accuracy of project costs and benefits, future availability of water, future land conditions, and the magnitude of sea level rise represent a substantial risk. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0199D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110439, Volume 1--556 pages, Volume 2--729 pages, Volume 3--788 pages, Volume 4--1,670 pages, Volume 5--368 pages, Volume 6--246 pages, January 6, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Lagoons KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Pumping Plants KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Shellfish KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Biscayne Bay KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/963637271?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 2 of 10] T2 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 963637270; 15195-9_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The redistribution of freshwater flow to rehydrate coastal wetlands and reduce point source freshwater discharges into Biscayne Bay, Miami-Dade County, Florida is proposed. The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands (BBCW) Project aims to restore the overland sheetflow in up to an 11,000-acre area to improve the ecology of Biscayne Bay, including its freshwater and saltwater wetlands, nearshore bay habitat, marine nursery habitat, and the oyster reef community. Biscayne Bay is a shallow, saline coastal lagoon bordered on the west by mainland Florida and on the east by a series of barrier islands. Significant areas within the project boundary are characterized by a low-productivity dwarf mangrove forest which has expanded landward by an average of 0.9 miles since 1940. The study area includes the South Dade Wetlands, which form a contiguous habitat corridor with Everglades National Park, Biscayne National Park, Crocodile Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, the north Key Largo conservation and recreational land purchases, John Pennekamp State Park, and the National Marine Sanctuary. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative YB would include a footprint of 60,000 acres of land, nine pump stations, 35 culverts reconnecting wetlands, four stormwater treatment areas (STAs) covering 4,000 acres, 14 miles of spreader canals, seven miles of conveyance canals, backfilling of five miles of Military and North canals, and plugging 2,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative M would attempt to minimize both the number of features and project extent by relying on relatively small detention areas to capture and store water. It would focus the restoration effort on saltwater wetlands and the nearshore bay and would include a footprint of 6,561 acres of land, three pump stations, 40 culverts reconnecting wetlands, two STAs covering 200 acres, five miles of spreader canals, and plugging 500 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative Q would include a footprint of 19,035 acres of land, ten pump stations, 50 culverts reconnecting wetlands, one STA covering 200 acres, nine miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O, introduced as an intermediate plan between Alternative M and Alternative Q, would include a footprint of 11,312 acres of land, 13 pump stations, 20 culverts reconnecting wetlands, seven miles of spreader canals, one mile of conveyance canals, and plugging 8,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O Phase 1, a standalone increment of Alternative O, is the selected plan and involves a footprint of 3,761 acres of land, seven pump stations, 10 culverts reconnecting wetlands, three miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2,500 feet of mosquito control ditches. As of March 2011, the total cost of the selected plan is estimated at $191 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would contribute to the restoration of Biscayne Bay and adjacent wetlands as part of a comprehensive plan for restoring the South Florida ecosystem. The project would redistribute freshwater runoff from the watershed away from the existing canal discharges and into the coastal wetlands adjoining Biscayne Bay to provide a more natural and historic overland flow. This project would also help restore saltwater wetlands and the nearshore bay through the re-establishment of optimal salinity concentrations for fish and shellfish nursery habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Several known archaeological sites, including the Deering Estates, are within the BBCW project area and could be affected. Major uncertainties related to the accuracy of project costs and benefits, future availability of water, future land conditions, and the magnitude of sea level rise represent a substantial risk. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0199D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110439, Volume 1--556 pages, Volume 2--729 pages, Volume 3--788 pages, Volume 4--1,670 pages, Volume 5--368 pages, Volume 6--246 pages, January 6, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Lagoons KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Pumping Plants KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Shellfish KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Biscayne Bay KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/963637270?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 6 of 10] T2 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 963636452; 15195-9_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The redistribution of freshwater flow to rehydrate coastal wetlands and reduce point source freshwater discharges into Biscayne Bay, Miami-Dade County, Florida is proposed. The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands (BBCW) Project aims to restore the overland sheetflow in up to an 11,000-acre area to improve the ecology of Biscayne Bay, including its freshwater and saltwater wetlands, nearshore bay habitat, marine nursery habitat, and the oyster reef community. Biscayne Bay is a shallow, saline coastal lagoon bordered on the west by mainland Florida and on the east by a series of barrier islands. Significant areas within the project boundary are characterized by a low-productivity dwarf mangrove forest which has expanded landward by an average of 0.9 miles since 1940. The study area includes the South Dade Wetlands, which form a contiguous habitat corridor with Everglades National Park, Biscayne National Park, Crocodile Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, the north Key Largo conservation and recreational land purchases, John Pennekamp State Park, and the National Marine Sanctuary. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative YB would include a footprint of 60,000 acres of land, nine pump stations, 35 culverts reconnecting wetlands, four stormwater treatment areas (STAs) covering 4,000 acres, 14 miles of spreader canals, seven miles of conveyance canals, backfilling of five miles of Military and North canals, and plugging 2,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative M would attempt to minimize both the number of features and project extent by relying on relatively small detention areas to capture and store water. It would focus the restoration effort on saltwater wetlands and the nearshore bay and would include a footprint of 6,561 acres of land, three pump stations, 40 culverts reconnecting wetlands, two STAs covering 200 acres, five miles of spreader canals, and plugging 500 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative Q would include a footprint of 19,035 acres of land, ten pump stations, 50 culverts reconnecting wetlands, one STA covering 200 acres, nine miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O, introduced as an intermediate plan between Alternative M and Alternative Q, would include a footprint of 11,312 acres of land, 13 pump stations, 20 culverts reconnecting wetlands, seven miles of spreader canals, one mile of conveyance canals, and plugging 8,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O Phase 1, a standalone increment of Alternative O, is the selected plan and involves a footprint of 3,761 acres of land, seven pump stations, 10 culverts reconnecting wetlands, three miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2,500 feet of mosquito control ditches. As of March 2011, the total cost of the selected plan is estimated at $191 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would contribute to the restoration of Biscayne Bay and adjacent wetlands as part of a comprehensive plan for restoring the South Florida ecosystem. The project would redistribute freshwater runoff from the watershed away from the existing canal discharges and into the coastal wetlands adjoining Biscayne Bay to provide a more natural and historic overland flow. This project would also help restore saltwater wetlands and the nearshore bay through the re-establishment of optimal salinity concentrations for fish and shellfish nursery habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Several known archaeological sites, including the Deering Estates, are within the BBCW project area and could be affected. Major uncertainties related to the accuracy of project costs and benefits, future availability of water, future land conditions, and the magnitude of sea level rise represent a substantial risk. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0199D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110439, Volume 1--556 pages, Volume 2--729 pages, Volume 3--788 pages, Volume 4--1,670 pages, Volume 5--368 pages, Volume 6--246 pages, January 6, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Lagoons KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Pumping Plants KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Shellfish KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Biscayne Bay KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/963636452?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 5 of 10] T2 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 963636444; 15195-9_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The redistribution of freshwater flow to rehydrate coastal wetlands and reduce point source freshwater discharges into Biscayne Bay, Miami-Dade County, Florida is proposed. The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands (BBCW) Project aims to restore the overland sheetflow in up to an 11,000-acre area to improve the ecology of Biscayne Bay, including its freshwater and saltwater wetlands, nearshore bay habitat, marine nursery habitat, and the oyster reef community. Biscayne Bay is a shallow, saline coastal lagoon bordered on the west by mainland Florida and on the east by a series of barrier islands. Significant areas within the project boundary are characterized by a low-productivity dwarf mangrove forest which has expanded landward by an average of 0.9 miles since 1940. The study area includes the South Dade Wetlands, which form a contiguous habitat corridor with Everglades National Park, Biscayne National Park, Crocodile Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, the north Key Largo conservation and recreational land purchases, John Pennekamp State Park, and the National Marine Sanctuary. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative YB would include a footprint of 60,000 acres of land, nine pump stations, 35 culverts reconnecting wetlands, four stormwater treatment areas (STAs) covering 4,000 acres, 14 miles of spreader canals, seven miles of conveyance canals, backfilling of five miles of Military and North canals, and plugging 2,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative M would attempt to minimize both the number of features and project extent by relying on relatively small detention areas to capture and store water. It would focus the restoration effort on saltwater wetlands and the nearshore bay and would include a footprint of 6,561 acres of land, three pump stations, 40 culverts reconnecting wetlands, two STAs covering 200 acres, five miles of spreader canals, and plugging 500 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative Q would include a footprint of 19,035 acres of land, ten pump stations, 50 culverts reconnecting wetlands, one STA covering 200 acres, nine miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O, introduced as an intermediate plan between Alternative M and Alternative Q, would include a footprint of 11,312 acres of land, 13 pump stations, 20 culverts reconnecting wetlands, seven miles of spreader canals, one mile of conveyance canals, and plugging 8,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O Phase 1, a standalone increment of Alternative O, is the selected plan and involves a footprint of 3,761 acres of land, seven pump stations, 10 culverts reconnecting wetlands, three miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2,500 feet of mosquito control ditches. As of March 2011, the total cost of the selected plan is estimated at $191 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would contribute to the restoration of Biscayne Bay and adjacent wetlands as part of a comprehensive plan for restoring the South Florida ecosystem. The project would redistribute freshwater runoff from the watershed away from the existing canal discharges and into the coastal wetlands adjoining Biscayne Bay to provide a more natural and historic overland flow. This project would also help restore saltwater wetlands and the nearshore bay through the re-establishment of optimal salinity concentrations for fish and shellfish nursery habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Several known archaeological sites, including the Deering Estates, are within the BBCW project area and could be affected. Major uncertainties related to the accuracy of project costs and benefits, future availability of water, future land conditions, and the magnitude of sea level rise represent a substantial risk. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0199D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110439, Volume 1--556 pages, Volume 2--729 pages, Volume 3--788 pages, Volume 4--1,670 pages, Volume 5--368 pages, Volume 6--246 pages, January 6, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Lagoons KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Pumping Plants KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Shellfish KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Biscayne Bay KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/963636444?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 4 of 10] T2 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 963636433; 15195-9_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The redistribution of freshwater flow to rehydrate coastal wetlands and reduce point source freshwater discharges into Biscayne Bay, Miami-Dade County, Florida is proposed. The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands (BBCW) Project aims to restore the overland sheetflow in up to an 11,000-acre area to improve the ecology of Biscayne Bay, including its freshwater and saltwater wetlands, nearshore bay habitat, marine nursery habitat, and the oyster reef community. Biscayne Bay is a shallow, saline coastal lagoon bordered on the west by mainland Florida and on the east by a series of barrier islands. Significant areas within the project boundary are characterized by a low-productivity dwarf mangrove forest which has expanded landward by an average of 0.9 miles since 1940. The study area includes the South Dade Wetlands, which form a contiguous habitat corridor with Everglades National Park, Biscayne National Park, Crocodile Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, the north Key Largo conservation and recreational land purchases, John Pennekamp State Park, and the National Marine Sanctuary. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative YB would include a footprint of 60,000 acres of land, nine pump stations, 35 culverts reconnecting wetlands, four stormwater treatment areas (STAs) covering 4,000 acres, 14 miles of spreader canals, seven miles of conveyance canals, backfilling of five miles of Military and North canals, and plugging 2,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative M would attempt to minimize both the number of features and project extent by relying on relatively small detention areas to capture and store water. It would focus the restoration effort on saltwater wetlands and the nearshore bay and would include a footprint of 6,561 acres of land, three pump stations, 40 culverts reconnecting wetlands, two STAs covering 200 acres, five miles of spreader canals, and plugging 500 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative Q would include a footprint of 19,035 acres of land, ten pump stations, 50 culverts reconnecting wetlands, one STA covering 200 acres, nine miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O, introduced as an intermediate plan between Alternative M and Alternative Q, would include a footprint of 11,312 acres of land, 13 pump stations, 20 culverts reconnecting wetlands, seven miles of spreader canals, one mile of conveyance canals, and plugging 8,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O Phase 1, a standalone increment of Alternative O, is the selected plan and involves a footprint of 3,761 acres of land, seven pump stations, 10 culverts reconnecting wetlands, three miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2,500 feet of mosquito control ditches. As of March 2011, the total cost of the selected plan is estimated at $191 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would contribute to the restoration of Biscayne Bay and adjacent wetlands as part of a comprehensive plan for restoring the South Florida ecosystem. The project would redistribute freshwater runoff from the watershed away from the existing canal discharges and into the coastal wetlands adjoining Biscayne Bay to provide a more natural and historic overland flow. This project would also help restore saltwater wetlands and the nearshore bay through the re-establishment of optimal salinity concentrations for fish and shellfish nursery habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Several known archaeological sites, including the Deering Estates, are within the BBCW project area and could be affected. Major uncertainties related to the accuracy of project costs and benefits, future availability of water, future land conditions, and the magnitude of sea level rise represent a substantial risk. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0199D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110439, Volume 1--556 pages, Volume 2--729 pages, Volume 3--788 pages, Volume 4--1,670 pages, Volume 5--368 pages, Volume 6--246 pages, January 6, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Lagoons KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Pumping Plants KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Shellfish KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Biscayne Bay KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/963636433?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 3 of 10] T2 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 963636421; 15195-9_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The redistribution of freshwater flow to rehydrate coastal wetlands and reduce point source freshwater discharges into Biscayne Bay, Miami-Dade County, Florida is proposed. The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands (BBCW) Project aims to restore the overland sheetflow in up to an 11,000-acre area to improve the ecology of Biscayne Bay, including its freshwater and saltwater wetlands, nearshore bay habitat, marine nursery habitat, and the oyster reef community. Biscayne Bay is a shallow, saline coastal lagoon bordered on the west by mainland Florida and on the east by a series of barrier islands. Significant areas within the project boundary are characterized by a low-productivity dwarf mangrove forest which has expanded landward by an average of 0.9 miles since 1940. The study area includes the South Dade Wetlands, which form a contiguous habitat corridor with Everglades National Park, Biscayne National Park, Crocodile Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, the north Key Largo conservation and recreational land purchases, John Pennekamp State Park, and the National Marine Sanctuary. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative YB would include a footprint of 60,000 acres of land, nine pump stations, 35 culverts reconnecting wetlands, four stormwater treatment areas (STAs) covering 4,000 acres, 14 miles of spreader canals, seven miles of conveyance canals, backfilling of five miles of Military and North canals, and plugging 2,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative M would attempt to minimize both the number of features and project extent by relying on relatively small detention areas to capture and store water. It would focus the restoration effort on saltwater wetlands and the nearshore bay and would include a footprint of 6,561 acres of land, three pump stations, 40 culverts reconnecting wetlands, two STAs covering 200 acres, five miles of spreader canals, and plugging 500 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative Q would include a footprint of 19,035 acres of land, ten pump stations, 50 culverts reconnecting wetlands, one STA covering 200 acres, nine miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O, introduced as an intermediate plan between Alternative M and Alternative Q, would include a footprint of 11,312 acres of land, 13 pump stations, 20 culverts reconnecting wetlands, seven miles of spreader canals, one mile of conveyance canals, and plugging 8,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O Phase 1, a standalone increment of Alternative O, is the selected plan and involves a footprint of 3,761 acres of land, seven pump stations, 10 culverts reconnecting wetlands, three miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2,500 feet of mosquito control ditches. As of March 2011, the total cost of the selected plan is estimated at $191 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would contribute to the restoration of Biscayne Bay and adjacent wetlands as part of a comprehensive plan for restoring the South Florida ecosystem. The project would redistribute freshwater runoff from the watershed away from the existing canal discharges and into the coastal wetlands adjoining Biscayne Bay to provide a more natural and historic overland flow. This project would also help restore saltwater wetlands and the nearshore bay through the re-establishment of optimal salinity concentrations for fish and shellfish nursery habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Several known archaeological sites, including the Deering Estates, are within the BBCW project area and could be affected. Major uncertainties related to the accuracy of project costs and benefits, future availability of water, future land conditions, and the magnitude of sea level rise represent a substantial risk. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0199D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110439, Volume 1--556 pages, Volume 2--729 pages, Volume 3--788 pages, Volume 4--1,670 pages, Volume 5--368 pages, Volume 6--246 pages, January 6, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Lagoons KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Pumping Plants KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Shellfish KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Biscayne Bay KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/963636421?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 10] T2 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 963636409; 15195-9_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The redistribution of freshwater flow to rehydrate coastal wetlands and reduce point source freshwater discharges into Biscayne Bay, Miami-Dade County, Florida is proposed. The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands (BBCW) Project aims to restore the overland sheetflow in up to an 11,000-acre area to improve the ecology of Biscayne Bay, including its freshwater and saltwater wetlands, nearshore bay habitat, marine nursery habitat, and the oyster reef community. Biscayne Bay is a shallow, saline coastal lagoon bordered on the west by mainland Florida and on the east by a series of barrier islands. Significant areas within the project boundary are characterized by a low-productivity dwarf mangrove forest which has expanded landward by an average of 0.9 miles since 1940. The study area includes the South Dade Wetlands, which form a contiguous habitat corridor with Everglades National Park, Biscayne National Park, Crocodile Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, the north Key Largo conservation and recreational land purchases, John Pennekamp State Park, and the National Marine Sanctuary. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative YB would include a footprint of 60,000 acres of land, nine pump stations, 35 culverts reconnecting wetlands, four stormwater treatment areas (STAs) covering 4,000 acres, 14 miles of spreader canals, seven miles of conveyance canals, backfilling of five miles of Military and North canals, and plugging 2,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative M would attempt to minimize both the number of features and project extent by relying on relatively small detention areas to capture and store water. It would focus the restoration effort on saltwater wetlands and the nearshore bay and would include a footprint of 6,561 acres of land, three pump stations, 40 culverts reconnecting wetlands, two STAs covering 200 acres, five miles of spreader canals, and plugging 500 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative Q would include a footprint of 19,035 acres of land, ten pump stations, 50 culverts reconnecting wetlands, one STA covering 200 acres, nine miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O, introduced as an intermediate plan between Alternative M and Alternative Q, would include a footprint of 11,312 acres of land, 13 pump stations, 20 culverts reconnecting wetlands, seven miles of spreader canals, one mile of conveyance canals, and plugging 8,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O Phase 1, a standalone increment of Alternative O, is the selected plan and involves a footprint of 3,761 acres of land, seven pump stations, 10 culverts reconnecting wetlands, three miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2,500 feet of mosquito control ditches. As of March 2011, the total cost of the selected plan is estimated at $191 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would contribute to the restoration of Biscayne Bay and adjacent wetlands as part of a comprehensive plan for restoring the South Florida ecosystem. The project would redistribute freshwater runoff from the watershed away from the existing canal discharges and into the coastal wetlands adjoining Biscayne Bay to provide a more natural and historic overland flow. This project would also help restore saltwater wetlands and the nearshore bay through the re-establishment of optimal salinity concentrations for fish and shellfish nursery habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Several known archaeological sites, including the Deering Estates, are within the BBCW project area and could be affected. Major uncertainties related to the accuracy of project costs and benefits, future availability of water, future land conditions, and the magnitude of sea level rise represent a substantial risk. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0199D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110439, Volume 1--556 pages, Volume 2--729 pages, Volume 3--788 pages, Volume 4--1,670 pages, Volume 5--368 pages, Volume 6--246 pages, January 6, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Lagoons KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Pumping Plants KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Shellfish KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Biscayne Bay KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/963636409?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 10 of 10] T2 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 963632427; 15195-9_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The redistribution of freshwater flow to rehydrate coastal wetlands and reduce point source freshwater discharges into Biscayne Bay, Miami-Dade County, Florida is proposed. The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands (BBCW) Project aims to restore the overland sheetflow in up to an 11,000-acre area to improve the ecology of Biscayne Bay, including its freshwater and saltwater wetlands, nearshore bay habitat, marine nursery habitat, and the oyster reef community. Biscayne Bay is a shallow, saline coastal lagoon bordered on the west by mainland Florida and on the east by a series of barrier islands. Significant areas within the project boundary are characterized by a low-productivity dwarf mangrove forest which has expanded landward by an average of 0.9 miles since 1940. The study area includes the South Dade Wetlands, which form a contiguous habitat corridor with Everglades National Park, Biscayne National Park, Crocodile Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, the north Key Largo conservation and recreational land purchases, John Pennekamp State Park, and the National Marine Sanctuary. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative YB would include a footprint of 60,000 acres of land, nine pump stations, 35 culverts reconnecting wetlands, four stormwater treatment areas (STAs) covering 4,000 acres, 14 miles of spreader canals, seven miles of conveyance canals, backfilling of five miles of Military and North canals, and plugging 2,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative M would attempt to minimize both the number of features and project extent by relying on relatively small detention areas to capture and store water. It would focus the restoration effort on saltwater wetlands and the nearshore bay and would include a footprint of 6,561 acres of land, three pump stations, 40 culverts reconnecting wetlands, two STAs covering 200 acres, five miles of spreader canals, and plugging 500 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative Q would include a footprint of 19,035 acres of land, ten pump stations, 50 culverts reconnecting wetlands, one STA covering 200 acres, nine miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O, introduced as an intermediate plan between Alternative M and Alternative Q, would include a footprint of 11,312 acres of land, 13 pump stations, 20 culverts reconnecting wetlands, seven miles of spreader canals, one mile of conveyance canals, and plugging 8,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O Phase 1, a standalone increment of Alternative O, is the selected plan and involves a footprint of 3,761 acres of land, seven pump stations, 10 culverts reconnecting wetlands, three miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2,500 feet of mosquito control ditches. As of March 2011, the total cost of the selected plan is estimated at $191 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would contribute to the restoration of Biscayne Bay and adjacent wetlands as part of a comprehensive plan for restoring the South Florida ecosystem. The project would redistribute freshwater runoff from the watershed away from the existing canal discharges and into the coastal wetlands adjoining Biscayne Bay to provide a more natural and historic overland flow. This project would also help restore saltwater wetlands and the nearshore bay through the re-establishment of optimal salinity concentrations for fish and shellfish nursery habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Several known archaeological sites, including the Deering Estates, are within the BBCW project area and could be affected. Major uncertainties related to the accuracy of project costs and benefits, future availability of water, future land conditions, and the magnitude of sea level rise represent a substantial risk. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0199D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110439, Volume 1--556 pages, Volume 2--729 pages, Volume 3--788 pages, Volume 4--1,670 pages, Volume 5--368 pages, Volume 6--246 pages, January 6, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Lagoons KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Pumping Plants KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Shellfish KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Biscayne Bay KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/963632427?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 9 of 10] T2 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 963632415; 15195-9_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The redistribution of freshwater flow to rehydrate coastal wetlands and reduce point source freshwater discharges into Biscayne Bay, Miami-Dade County, Florida is proposed. The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands (BBCW) Project aims to restore the overland sheetflow in up to an 11,000-acre area to improve the ecology of Biscayne Bay, including its freshwater and saltwater wetlands, nearshore bay habitat, marine nursery habitat, and the oyster reef community. Biscayne Bay is a shallow, saline coastal lagoon bordered on the west by mainland Florida and on the east by a series of barrier islands. Significant areas within the project boundary are characterized by a low-productivity dwarf mangrove forest which has expanded landward by an average of 0.9 miles since 1940. The study area includes the South Dade Wetlands, which form a contiguous habitat corridor with Everglades National Park, Biscayne National Park, Crocodile Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, the north Key Largo conservation and recreational land purchases, John Pennekamp State Park, and the National Marine Sanctuary. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative YB would include a footprint of 60,000 acres of land, nine pump stations, 35 culverts reconnecting wetlands, four stormwater treatment areas (STAs) covering 4,000 acres, 14 miles of spreader canals, seven miles of conveyance canals, backfilling of five miles of Military and North canals, and plugging 2,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative M would attempt to minimize both the number of features and project extent by relying on relatively small detention areas to capture and store water. It would focus the restoration effort on saltwater wetlands and the nearshore bay and would include a footprint of 6,561 acres of land, three pump stations, 40 culverts reconnecting wetlands, two STAs covering 200 acres, five miles of spreader canals, and plugging 500 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative Q would include a footprint of 19,035 acres of land, ten pump stations, 50 culverts reconnecting wetlands, one STA covering 200 acres, nine miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O, introduced as an intermediate plan between Alternative M and Alternative Q, would include a footprint of 11,312 acres of land, 13 pump stations, 20 culverts reconnecting wetlands, seven miles of spreader canals, one mile of conveyance canals, and plugging 8,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O Phase 1, a standalone increment of Alternative O, is the selected plan and involves a footprint of 3,761 acres of land, seven pump stations, 10 culverts reconnecting wetlands, three miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2,500 feet of mosquito control ditches. As of March 2011, the total cost of the selected plan is estimated at $191 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would contribute to the restoration of Biscayne Bay and adjacent wetlands as part of a comprehensive plan for restoring the South Florida ecosystem. The project would redistribute freshwater runoff from the watershed away from the existing canal discharges and into the coastal wetlands adjoining Biscayne Bay to provide a more natural and historic overland flow. This project would also help restore saltwater wetlands and the nearshore bay through the re-establishment of optimal salinity concentrations for fish and shellfish nursery habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Several known archaeological sites, including the Deering Estates, are within the BBCW project area and could be affected. Major uncertainties related to the accuracy of project costs and benefits, future availability of water, future land conditions, and the magnitude of sea level rise represent a substantial risk. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0199D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110439, Volume 1--556 pages, Volume 2--729 pages, Volume 3--788 pages, Volume 4--1,670 pages, Volume 5--368 pages, Volume 6--246 pages, January 6, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Lagoons KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Pumping Plants KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Shellfish KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Biscayne Bay KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/963632415?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 8 of 10] T2 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 963632388; 15195-9_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The redistribution of freshwater flow to rehydrate coastal wetlands and reduce point source freshwater discharges into Biscayne Bay, Miami-Dade County, Florida is proposed. The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands (BBCW) Project aims to restore the overland sheetflow in up to an 11,000-acre area to improve the ecology of Biscayne Bay, including its freshwater and saltwater wetlands, nearshore bay habitat, marine nursery habitat, and the oyster reef community. Biscayne Bay is a shallow, saline coastal lagoon bordered on the west by mainland Florida and on the east by a series of barrier islands. Significant areas within the project boundary are characterized by a low-productivity dwarf mangrove forest which has expanded landward by an average of 0.9 miles since 1940. The study area includes the South Dade Wetlands, which form a contiguous habitat corridor with Everglades National Park, Biscayne National Park, Crocodile Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, the north Key Largo conservation and recreational land purchases, John Pennekamp State Park, and the National Marine Sanctuary. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative YB would include a footprint of 60,000 acres of land, nine pump stations, 35 culverts reconnecting wetlands, four stormwater treatment areas (STAs) covering 4,000 acres, 14 miles of spreader canals, seven miles of conveyance canals, backfilling of five miles of Military and North canals, and plugging 2,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative M would attempt to minimize both the number of features and project extent by relying on relatively small detention areas to capture and store water. It would focus the restoration effort on saltwater wetlands and the nearshore bay and would include a footprint of 6,561 acres of land, three pump stations, 40 culverts reconnecting wetlands, two STAs covering 200 acres, five miles of spreader canals, and plugging 500 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative Q would include a footprint of 19,035 acres of land, ten pump stations, 50 culverts reconnecting wetlands, one STA covering 200 acres, nine miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O, introduced as an intermediate plan between Alternative M and Alternative Q, would include a footprint of 11,312 acres of land, 13 pump stations, 20 culverts reconnecting wetlands, seven miles of spreader canals, one mile of conveyance canals, and plugging 8,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O Phase 1, a standalone increment of Alternative O, is the selected plan and involves a footprint of 3,761 acres of land, seven pump stations, 10 culverts reconnecting wetlands, three miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2,500 feet of mosquito control ditches. As of March 2011, the total cost of the selected plan is estimated at $191 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would contribute to the restoration of Biscayne Bay and adjacent wetlands as part of a comprehensive plan for restoring the South Florida ecosystem. The project would redistribute freshwater runoff from the watershed away from the existing canal discharges and into the coastal wetlands adjoining Biscayne Bay to provide a more natural and historic overland flow. This project would also help restore saltwater wetlands and the nearshore bay through the re-establishment of optimal salinity concentrations for fish and shellfish nursery habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Several known archaeological sites, including the Deering Estates, are within the BBCW project area and could be affected. Major uncertainties related to the accuracy of project costs and benefits, future availability of water, future land conditions, and the magnitude of sea level rise represent a substantial risk. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0199D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110439, Volume 1--556 pages, Volume 2--729 pages, Volume 3--788 pages, Volume 4--1,670 pages, Volume 5--368 pages, Volume 6--246 pages, January 6, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Lagoons KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Pumping Plants KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Shellfish KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Biscayne Bay KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/963632388?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 16388566; 15195 AB - PURPOSE: The redistribution of freshwater flow to rehydrate coastal wetlands and reduce point source freshwater discharges into Biscayne Bay, Miami-Dade County, Florida is proposed. The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands (BBCW) Project aims to restore the overland sheetflow in up to an 11,000-acre area to improve the ecology of Biscayne Bay, including its freshwater and saltwater wetlands, nearshore bay habitat, marine nursery habitat, and the oyster reef community. Biscayne Bay is a shallow, saline coastal lagoon bordered on the west by mainland Florida and on the east by a series of barrier islands. Significant areas within the project boundary are characterized by a low-productivity dwarf mangrove forest which has expanded landward by an average of 0.9 miles since 1940. The study area includes the South Dade Wetlands, which form a contiguous habitat corridor with Everglades National Park, Biscayne National Park, Crocodile Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, the north Key Largo conservation and recreational land purchases, John Pennekamp State Park, and the National Marine Sanctuary. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative YB would include a footprint of 60,000 acres of land, nine pump stations, 35 culverts reconnecting wetlands, four stormwater treatment areas (STAs) covering 4,000 acres, 14 miles of spreader canals, seven miles of conveyance canals, backfilling of five miles of Military and North canals, and plugging 2,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative M would attempt to minimize both the number of features and project extent by relying on relatively small detention areas to capture and store water. It would focus the restoration effort on saltwater wetlands and the nearshore bay and would include a footprint of 6,561 acres of land, three pump stations, 40 culverts reconnecting wetlands, two STAs covering 200 acres, five miles of spreader canals, and plugging 500 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative Q would include a footprint of 19,035 acres of land, ten pump stations, 50 culverts reconnecting wetlands, one STA covering 200 acres, nine miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O, introduced as an intermediate plan between Alternative M and Alternative Q, would include a footprint of 11,312 acres of land, 13 pump stations, 20 culverts reconnecting wetlands, seven miles of spreader canals, one mile of conveyance canals, and plugging 8,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O Phase 1, a standalone increment of Alternative O, is the selected plan and involves a footprint of 3,761 acres of land, seven pump stations, 10 culverts reconnecting wetlands, three miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2,500 feet of mosquito control ditches. As of March 2011, the total cost of the selected plan is estimated at $191 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would contribute to the restoration of Biscayne Bay and adjacent wetlands as part of a comprehensive plan for restoring the South Florida ecosystem. The project would redistribute freshwater runoff from the watershed away from the existing canal discharges and into the coastal wetlands adjoining Biscayne Bay to provide a more natural and historic overland flow. This project would also help restore saltwater wetlands and the nearshore bay through the re-establishment of optimal salinity concentrations for fish and shellfish nursery habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Several known archaeological sites, including the Deering Estates, are within the BBCW project area and could be affected. Major uncertainties related to the accuracy of project costs and benefits, future availability of water, future land conditions, and the magnitude of sea level rise represent a substantial risk. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0199D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110439, Volume 1--556 pages, Volume 2--729 pages, Volume 3--788 pages, Volume 4--1,670 pages, Volume 5--368 pages, Volume 6--246 pages, January 6, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Land Use KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Lagoons KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Pumping Plants KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Shellfish KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Biscayne Bay KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16388566?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-08 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Development of cleanup technologies for the management of US military installations AN - 968180027; 16427374 AB - In 1989 the environmental restoration programmes conducted independently by the US Army, Navy and Air Force were rationalized to jointly support research and technology transfer in this important field. By 1994 cleanup efforts were concentrated in four main areas: site investigation, groundwater modelling, treatment technologies and the fate/impact of potential contaminants. Since 1994, technology development has moved forward rapidly. Groundwater monitoring wells have served as the conventional method of collecting groundwater samples, although direct pushed technologies are now providing a faster and cheaper alternative. A range of groundwater models has been supported and a model is being developed for the Army to forecast the fate and risk of constituents derived from munitions. Cleanup technologies are increasingly moving away from processes that remove sediment or groundwater to in situ solutions. These include range management using lime, the establishment of biologically active zones for indigenous microbes, and phytoremediation. The environmental fate of contaminants has been predicted using flexible models. Examples are given from a number of sites including the US Military Academy at West Point and Langley Air Force Base. Investment continues to support studies to provide safer, faster and better remediation of contaminants related to past military use. JF - Geological Society, London, Special Publications AU - Miller, Jerry AU - Foran, Christy AD - US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, USA Y1 - 2012 PY - 2012 DA - 2012 SP - 321 EP - 342 PB - The Geological Society of London VL - 362 IS - 1 SN - 0305-8719, 0305-8719 KW - Pollution Abstracts; Sustainability Science Abstracts; Environment Abstracts KW - Bioremediation KW - Economics KW - Environmental impact KW - Groundwater KW - Military KW - Phytoremediation KW - Pollution monitoring KW - Technology KW - range management KW - USA KW - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION KW - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development KW - ENA 01:Air Pollution UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/968180027?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Assamodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-13 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - range management; Pollution monitoring; Bioremediation; Phytoremediation; Economics; Environmental impact; Military; Groundwater; Technology; USA ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Bird Community Response to Vegetation Cover and Composition in Riparian Habitats Dominated by Russian Olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) AN - 954670146; 16386890 AB - Riparian systems in the western United States provide important habitat for bird communities during all times of the year. In recent decades, invasive plants, such as Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), have achieved broad distribution and local dominance in many western riparian areas, raising concerns over the loss of ecological function within these systems. In 2005 and 2006 we conducted avian point counts and surveyed vegetation cover at 95 points along the Snake and Columbia Rivers in southeastern Washington to investigate the effects of total woody vegetation cover and the relative proportion of Russian olive cover on breeding and wintering riparian bird communities. Our results indicated that riparian habitats dominated by Russian olive can support diverse and abundant bird communities, though cavity nesting species were noticeably sparse. Bird density and species richness were best explained by a quadratic relationship to total woody vegetation cover in both seasons, as was breeding bird community composition, with greatest density and richness in intermediate cover levels. We found no indication that the proportion of the woody vegetation comprised of Russian olive strongly influenced any of these bird community metrics. Given that Russian olive comprised 81.6% of the riparian vegetation in our study area, it is unclear from our results how Russian olive would affect bird communities in regions where native vegetation is more abundant. Regardless, complete eradication of Russian olive from riparian systems where the plant is a major component will reduce the overall habitat value for birds by eliminating significant structural complexity. JF - Northwest Science AU - Fischer, Richard A AU - Valente, Jonathon J AU - Guilfoyle, Michael P AU - Kaller, Michael D AU - Jackson, Sam S AU - Ratti, John T AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180, Jonathon.J.Valente@gmail.com Y1 - 2012/01// PY - 2012 DA - Jan 2012 SP - 39 EP - 52 PB - Northwest Scientific Association, PO Box 645910 Pullman, WA 99164-5910 United States VL - 86 IS - 1 SN - 0029-344X, 0029-344X KW - Ecology Abstracts; Sustainability Science Abstracts KW - Olea KW - Elaeagnus angustifolia KW - Plant breeding KW - USA, Columbia R. KW - USA, Washington KW - breeding KW - species richness KW - Riparian environments KW - Species richness KW - Rivers KW - Cavities KW - woody plants KW - Vegetation KW - Habitat KW - Dominance KW - Aves KW - Community composition KW - vegetation cover KW - Plants KW - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development KW - D 04040:Ecosystem and Ecology Studies UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/954670146?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aecology&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Northwest+Science&rft.atitle=Bird+Community+Response+to+Vegetation+Cover+and+Composition+in+Riparian+Habitats+Dominated+by+Russian+Olive+%28Elaeagnus+angustifolia%29&rft.au=Fischer%2C+Richard+A%3BValente%2C+Jonathon+J%3BGuilfoyle%2C+Michael+P%3BKaller%2C+Michael+D%3BJackson%2C+Sam+S%3BRatti%2C+John+T&rft.aulast=Fischer&rft.aufirst=Richard&rft.date=2012-01-01&rft.volume=86&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=39&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Northwest+Science&rft.issn=0029344X&rft_id=info:doi/10.3955%2F046.086.0104 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-06 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Rivers; Cavities; Community composition; Plant breeding; Vegetation; Habitat; Species richness; Dominance; Aves; breeding; species richness; vegetation cover; woody plants; Plants; Riparian environments; Olea; Elaeagnus angustifolia; USA, Washington; USA, Columbia R. DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.3955/046.086.0104 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Modeling of Scour-Inducing Ice Effects at Melvin Price Lock and Dam AN - 954639950; 16421936 AB - A numerical model was used to better understand ice-related scour processes at a large lock and dam. Large scour holes in front of Melvin Price Lock and Dam, the largest navigation structure on the Mississippi River, present a unique opportunity to explore this effect because the scour has been so severe and well documented. Likely scenarios for river ice accumulation and passage were identified based on historical flows and observations. For all simulations, the ice accumulated upstream of the gates as observed in the field and the ice thicknesses were found to match well with the general shape of the scour surveys. Ice thicknesses as large as 5.9 m and under-ice depth-averaged water velocities as great as 6.6 m/ s were observed in the simulations. By using a shear stress criterion, the rock size necessary to prevent the scour exceeded the original rock size of 0.33 m for six of the seven cases. This study demonstrates that the presence of a localized thick ice accumulation increases the potential for bed shear and may cause movement of stone bed protection sized for open water conditions. Ice processes should therefore be considered in the design or rehabilitation of riprap protection at large lock and dam structures. JF - Journal of Hydraulic Engineering AU - Carr, Meredith L AU - Tuthill, Andrew M AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, 72 Lyme Road, Hanover, NH 03755. Y1 - 2012/01// PY - 2012 DA - January 2012 SP - 85 EP - 92 PB - American Society of Civil Engineers (Hydraulics), 345 E. 47th St. New York NY 10017-2398 United States VL - 138 IS - 1 SN - 0733-9429, 0733-9429 KW - Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Aqualine Abstracts KW - Ice KW - Scour KW - Navigation KW - Shear stress KW - Numerical models KW - Mississippi River KW - Riprap KW - Navigation dams KW - Locks KW - Hydraulic engineering KW - Prices KW - Ice thickness KW - Dams KW - Structural Engineering KW - Ice Thickness KW - Modelling KW - Rivers KW - Mathematical models KW - Model Studies KW - North America, Mississippi R. KW - Scouring KW - Accumulation KW - Q2 09283:Soil mechanics KW - SW 6010:Structures KW - AQ 00005:Underground Services and Water Use UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/954639950?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Hydraulic+Engineering&rft.atitle=Modeling+of+Scour-Inducing+Ice+Effects+at+Melvin+Price+Lock+and+Dam&rft.au=Carr%2C+Meredith+L%3BTuthill%2C+Andrew+M&rft.aulast=Carr&rft.aufirst=Meredith&rft.date=2012-01-01&rft.volume=138&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=85&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Hydraulic+Engineering&rft.issn=07339429&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F%28ASCE%29HY.1943-7900.0000483 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Shear stress; Ice thickness; Riprap; Scouring; Mathematical models; Hydraulic engineering; Modelling; Rivers; Locks; Dams; Prices; Scour; Structural Engineering; Accumulation; Ice Thickness; Model Studies; North America, Mississippi R. DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000483 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Using Multitemporal Remote Sensing Imagery and Inundation Measures to Improve Land Change Estimates in Coastal Wetlands AN - 926888864; 16367327 AB - Remote sensing imagery can be an invaluable resource to quantify land change in coastal wetlands. Obtaining an accurate measure of land change can, however, be complicated by differences in fluvial and tidal inundation experienced when the imagery is captured. This study classified Landsat imagery from two wetland areas in coastal Louisiana from 1983 to 2010 into categories of land and water. Tide height, river level, and date were used as independent variables in a multiple regression model to predict land area in the Wax Lake Delta (WLD) and compare those estimates with an adjacent marsh area lacking direct fluvial inputs. Coefficients of determination from regressions using both measures of water level along with date as predictor variables of land extent in the WLD, were higher than those obtained using the current methodology which only uses date to predict land change. Land change trend estimates were also improved when the data were divided by time period. Water level corrected land gain in the WLD from 1983 to 2010 was 1 km super(2) year super(-1), while rates in the adjacent marsh remained roughly constant. This approach of isolating environmental variability due to changing water levels improves estimates of actual land change in a dynamic system, so that other processes that may control delta development such as hurricanes, floods, and sediment delivery, may be further investigated. JF - Estuaries and Coasts AU - Allen, Yvonne C AU - Couvillion, Brady R AU - Barras, John A AD - US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, Environmental Systems Branch, 3909 Halls Ferry Rd., Vicksburg, MS, USA, yvonne.c.allen@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2012/01// PY - 2012 DA - January 2012 SP - 190 EP - 200 PB - Springer Science+Business Media, Van Godewijckstraat 30 Dordrecht 3311 GX Netherlands VL - 35 IS - 1 SN - 1559-2723, 1559-2723 KW - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; Oceanic Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - Remote Sensing KW - ASW, USA, Louisiana KW - Climate change KW - Statistical analysis KW - Remote sensing KW - LANDSAT KW - Deltas KW - Water levels KW - Lakes KW - Floods KW - River levels KW - Wetlands KW - Coasts KW - Estuaries KW - Hurricane floods KW - Water Level KW - Marshes KW - Tide heights KW - Hurricanes KW - Coastal zone KW - Flooding KW - Flood variability KW - O 2090:Instruments/Methods KW - SW 5040:Data acquisition KW - Q2 09264:Sediments and sedimentation KW - M2 551.466:Ocean Waves and Tides (551.466) UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/926888864?accountid=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=Estuaries+and+Coasts&rft.atitle=Using+Multitemporal+Remote+Sensing+Imagery+and+Inundation+Measures+to+Improve+Land+Change+Estimates+in+Coastal+Wetlands&rft.au=Allen%2C+Yvonne+C%3BCouvillion%2C+Brady+R%3BBarras%2C+John+A&rft.aulast=Allen&rft.aufirst=Yvonne&rft.date=2012-01-01&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=190&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Estuaries+and+Coasts&rft.issn=15592723&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs12237-011-9437-z LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-07-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Water levels; Hurricanes; Coastal zone; Climate change; Remote sensing; Wetlands; Marshes; Tide heights; Estuaries; Statistical analysis; Hurricane floods; River levels; LANDSAT; Flood variability; Remote Sensing; Lakes; Floods; Flooding; Deltas; Water Level; Coasts; ASW, USA, Louisiana DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12237-011-9437-z ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Evapotranspiration Network Design: Implementation Plan Development AN - 1850793380; PQ0003869573 AB - Accurate measurement of climate variables via the optimal number and location of ground sensors is important to accurately compute evapotranspiration over a large area. Optimal ground sensor networks for each of the four evapotranspiration (ET) parameters (solar radiation, air temperature, relative humidity, and wind speed) were developed independently. The goal of this project was to develop an implementation plan for the ET monitoring network that would incorporate the results from the four indicated meteorological variables for the South Florida Water Management District (District). The implementation of a network design involves assignment and placement of the sensors. The assignment of the sensors depends on the existing number of sensors and the required number of sensors for the optimal design. The placement of sensors depends on the practical considerations and the logistics related maintenance and installation options. The implementation strategies were identified and an implementation plan matrix was developed which included five implementation plans based on the available District owned and non-District sensors. The potential opportunities to avoid land acquisition and to assume ownership of the non-District stations were identified and incorporated into the evaluation process. Preliminary planning level cost of land acquisition, installation, maintenance, and others were estimated for installation of new and relocation of existing sensors within and across the analysis blocks were prepared. The previously designed optimal networks for all the variables were compiled to 50 analysis blocks of 32 km x 32 km uniform grids. A total of 75 full weather stations are necessary to satisfy the design requirements of all four networks. Based on cost and logistics of sensor locations, Alternative 5 is recommended as the preferred implementation plan that would meet the required sensor density recommended in the previous network design studies. The recommendation included 42 existing full weather stations (25 stations owned by SFWMD, 11 stations owned by FAWN, and 6 stations owned by NOAA), relocation of 5 District owned stations, 13 existing partial weather stations owned by NOAA that would be upgraded to full stations, 11 existing rain gauge stations owned by various counties that need to be upgraded to full stations, 9 new stations. Six of these stations would need land acquisition. JF - World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2012: Crossing Boundaries AU - Pathak, Chandra S AU - Panigrahi, Bijay K AD - Hydrology, Hydraulic and Coastal Community of Practice, US Army Corps of Engineers, Headquarters, 441 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20314-1000., chandra.s.pathak@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2012///0, PY - 2012 DA - 0, 2012 SP - 3833 EP - 3843 KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - : Watershed KW - Climate change KW - Evapotranspiration KW - Computation KW - Relative humidity KW - Water Management KW - Sensors KW - Water resources KW - Relative Humidity KW - Air temperature KW - Costs KW - Relocation KW - Biological surveys KW - ASW, USA, Florida KW - Weather KW - Rain gauges KW - Climates KW - Climate KW - Installation KW - Water management KW - AQ 00001:Water Resources and Supplies KW - Q2 09144:Regional studies, expeditions and data reports KW - SW 0810:General UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1850793380?accountid=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=World+Environmental+and+Water+Resources+Congress+2012%3A+Crossing+Boundaries&rft.atitle=Evapotranspiration+Network+Design%3A+Implementation+Plan+Development&rft.au=Pathak%2C+Chandra+S%3BPanigrahi%2C+Bijay+K&rft.aulast=Pathak&rft.aufirst=Chandra&rft.date=2012-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=3833&rft.isbn=9780784412312&rft.btitle=&rft.title=World+Environmental+and+Water+Resources+Congress+2012%3A+Crossing+Boundaries&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F9780784412312.385 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2016-12-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Relative humidity; Biological surveys; Rain gauges; Sensors; Water management; Climate; Water resources; Evapotranspiration; Air temperature; Costs; Weather; Water Management; Relocation; Climates; Relative Humidity; Installation; ASW, USA, Florida DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/9780784412312.385 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Comparison of Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler and Price AA Mechanical Current Meter Measurements Made during the 2011 Mississippi River Flood AN - 1850791911; PQ0003869679 AB - The Mississippi River and Tributaries project performed as designed during the historic 2011 Mississippi River flood, with many of the operational decisions based on discharge targets as opposed to stage. Measurement of discharge at the Tarbert Landing, Mississippi range provides critical information used in operational decisions for the floodways located in Louisiana. Historically, discharge measurements have been made using a Price AA current meter and the mid-section method, and a long record exists based on these types of measurements, including historical peak discharges. Discharge measurements made using an acoustic Doppler current profiler from a moving boat have been incorporated into the record since the mid 1990's, and are used along with the Price AA mid-section measurements. During the 2011 flood event, both methods were used and appeared to provide different results at times. The apparent differences between the measurement techniques are due to complex hydrodynamics at this location that created large spatial and temporal fluctuations in the flow. The data and analysis presented herein show the difference between the two methods to be within the expected accuracy of the measurements when the measurements are made concurrently. The observed fluctuations prevent valid comparisons of data collected sequentially or even with different observation durations. JF - World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2012: Crossing Boundaries AU - O'Brien, Patrick AU - Mueller, David AU - Pratt, Thad AD - US Army Corps of Engineers, Mississippi Valley Division, P.O. Box 80, Vicksburg, MS 39181-0080., patrick.s.obrien@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2012///0, PY - 2012 DA - 0, 2012 SP - 1260 EP - 1269 KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - : Hydraulics and Waterways KW - Measurement KW - Currents KW - Mississippi River KW - Floods KW - Acoustic data KW - ASW, USA, Louisiana KW - Water resources KW - Doppler sonar KW - Freshwater KW - Boats KW - Discharge Measurement KW - Tributaries KW - Current Meters KW - Rivers KW - Acoustics KW - River discharge KW - Methodology KW - Landing statistics KW - North America, Mississippi R. KW - Boundaries KW - Fluctuations KW - AQ 00001:Water Resources and Supplies KW - SW 0810:General KW - Q2 09107:History and development UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1850791911?accountid=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=World+Environmental+and+Water+Resources+Congress+2012%3A+Crossing+Boundaries&rft.atitle=Comparison+of+Acoustic+Doppler+Current+Profiler+and+Price+AA+Mechanical+Current+Meter+Measurements+Made+during+the+2011+Mississippi+River+Flood&rft.au=O%27Brien%2C+Patrick%3BMueller%2C+David%3BPratt%2C+Thad&rft.aulast=O%27Brien&rft.aufirst=Patrick&rft.date=2012-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=1260&rft.isbn=9780784412312&rft.btitle=&rft.title=World+Environmental+and+Water+Resources+Congress+2012%3A+Crossing+Boundaries&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F9780784412312.127 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2016-12-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Landing statistics; Rivers; Acoustic data; Floods; River discharge; Water resources; Doppler sonar; Tributaries; Methodology; Boats; Acoustics; Boundaries; Discharge Measurement; Fluctuations; Current Meters; North America, Mississippi R.; ASW, USA, Louisiana; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/9780784412312.127 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - An Experimental Platform for Building Information Research AN - 1850787174; PQ0003871595 AB - The authors' efforts to improve the quality of Industry Foundation Class (IFC) building information exchanges has highlighted needed for defensible verification methods. The tools and techniques needed to meet these efforts requirements would also improve research that requires building information. This paper announces the open publication of a series of models and tools produced and used by the authors for their research. Widespread use of common models and shared tools are expected to improve the quality of research that requires building information. JF - Computing in Civil Engineering (2012) AU - East, E W AU - Bogen, C AD - Research Civil Engineer, Engineer Research and Development Center, Champaign, IL, 9005-61826., bill.east@us.army.mil Y1 - 2012///0, PY - 2012 DA - 0, 2012 SP - 301 EP - 308 KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - Building Information Modeling KW - Building information models KW - Information management KW - Experimentation KW - Civil Engineering KW - Water Requirements KW - Buildings KW - Civil engineering KW - Modelling KW - Methodology KW - AQ 00001:Water Resources and Supplies KW - SW 0810:General KW - Q2 09105:Research programmes and expeditions UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1850787174?accountid=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=Computing+in+Civil+Engineering+%282012%29&rft.atitle=An+Experimental+Platform+for+Building+Information+Research&rft.au=East%2C+E+W%3BBogen%2C+C&rft.aulast=East&rft.aufirst=E&rft.date=2012-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=301&rft.isbn=9780784412343&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Computing+in+Civil+Engineering+%282012%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F9780784412343.0038 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2016-12-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Civil engineering; Methodology; Modelling; Civil Engineering; Water Requirements; Buildings DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/9780784412343.0038 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - The 2011 Mississippi River Flood and How the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project System Provides "Room for the River" AN - 1850786282; PQ0003869476 AB - The Mississippi River & Tributaries (MR&T) Project was authorized by Congress in the 1928 Flood Control Act following the disastrous 1927 flood and has thus far prevented a repeat of such catastrophic flooding while providing adequate conveyance to safely pass flood events. Despite the magnitude of the 2011 flood event, flooding was limited to the conveyance areas intended for safe passage of major floods as designed by the MR&T system. As with most major floods, public and media interest focused on the areas that were flooded, but provided only limited acknowledgement of the areas that would have flooded without the project. Despite the success of the MR&T Project, some interests have raised concerns that the flood risk reduction system has overly constricted or constrained the river and its floodplain and have suggested that more of the historic floodplain should be made available for major floods, habitat and water quality concerns. The Netherlands' "Room for the River" program consists of measures and projects designed to reopen its Rhine River floodplains to address similar concerns within their river basin. The MR&T project will be compared and contrasted to the Netherlands' program with an emphasis on the differences in scale between the two programs, with respect to the overall area and volume of water that must be conveyed by the systems. Using the 2011 Flood results, this paper compares how the MR&T project system was designed and how it functioned to provide "Room for the River" while limiting flooding impacts to the four million residents of the Lower Mississippi River basin. JF - World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2012: Crossing Boundaries AU - Shadie, Charles E AU - Kleiss, Barbara A AD - Chief, Watershed Division, Mississippi Valley Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1400 Walnut Street, Vicksburg, MS 39181-0080., Charles.E.Shadie@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2012///0, PY - 2012 DA - 0, 2012 SP - 1664 EP - 1676 KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - : Hydraulics and Waterways KW - Mississippi River KW - Floods KW - River basins KW - Flood control KW - River Basins KW - Water resources KW - Freshwater KW - Water quality KW - Netherlands KW - Tributaries KW - Rivers KW - Water Quality KW - USA, Mississippi R. basin KW - Europe, Rhine R. KW - Flood Plains KW - North America, Mississippi R. KW - Flood plains KW - Boundaries KW - Flooding KW - Water Resources KW - AQ 00001:Water Resources and Supplies KW - Q2 09144:Regional studies, expeditions and data reports KW - SW 0810:General UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1850786282?accountid=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=World+Environmental+and+Water+Resources+Congress+2012%3A+Crossing+Boundaries&rft.atitle=The+2011+Mississippi+River+Flood+and+How+the+Mississippi+River+and+Tributaries+Project+System+Provides+%22Room+for+the+River%22&rft.au=Shadie%2C+Charles+E%3BKleiss%2C+Barbara+A&rft.aulast=Shadie&rft.aufirst=Charles&rft.date=2012-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2016-12-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Rivers; Flood control; Flood plains; Floods; Flooding; Water resources; River basins; Water quality; Tributaries; Flood Plains; River Basins; Water Quality; Boundaries; Water Resources; North America, Mississippi R.; USA, Mississippi R. basin; Netherlands; Europe, Rhine R.; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/9780784412312.165 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Dynamic stiffness of laterally loaded pile foundation in Dhaka soil AN - 1729844699; 2015-101088 AB - Dynamic response of structures, in many cases, significantly depends on dynamic response of underlying foundation-soil system. However, this soil-structure interaction (SSI) is not considered in regular design practice. Specific information on dynamic response of foundation at a particular locality may be useful for practicing engineers. In view of this, current study presents evaluation of dynamic pile head stiffness using a SSI analysis tool based on Thin Layered Element Method (TLEM). The frequency dependent pile head stiffness has been evaluated by TLEM software for two selected sites of Dhaka city, namely; Mirpur Defense Officers' Housing Scheme (Mirpur DOHS) and Uttara site. Few widely used RCC pile dimensions ranging from 457 to 610 mm diameter with lengths varying from 9 to 25 m were considered for the analysis. It has been found that stiffness decreases with the increase of frequency. Dynamic pile head stiffness curves are developed for selected sites up to a frequency of 10 Hz. The pile head stiffness becomes almost independent of pile diameter at a certain range of frequency (23 to 28 Hz) for different lengths. Larger diameter piles exhibit greater damping in comparison to piles of smaller diameters. This study also presents the effect of soil layer homogeneity that influences the soil-pile-soil interaction effect. Pile head stiffness for a homogeneous soil layer of medium dense sand compared to the pile head stiffness for in-situ soil layer of Uttara site provides almost one fifth times greater stiffness. Dense sand layer of Uttara site has shown almost four times higher stiffness than that of Mirpur DOHS site. JF - The Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering AU - Ahmed, Mohiuddin AU - Shariful Islam, Mohammad AU - Ahsan, Raquib Y1 - 2012 PY - 2012 DA - 2012 SP - 2375 EP - 2397 PB - Mete Oner, Stillwater, OK VL - 17 IS - Bundle P KW - Dhaka Bangladesh KW - clay KW - penetration tests KW - dynamic loading KW - engineering properties KW - stiffness KW - elastic waves KW - urbanization KW - seismic response KW - layered materials KW - urban environment KW - substrates KW - finite element analysis KW - foundations KW - Indian Peninsula KW - stiff clays KW - sediments KW - piles KW - Asia KW - Bangladesh KW - dynamic properties KW - soil mechanics KW - body waves KW - clastic sediments KW - loading KW - Uttara Site KW - soil-structure interface KW - seismic waves KW - Mirpur Site KW - S-waves KW - lateral loading KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1729844699?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+Electronic+Journal+of+Geotechnical+Engineering&rft.atitle=Dynamic+stiffness+of+laterally+loaded+pile+foundation+in+Dhaka+soil&rft.au=Ahmed%2C+Mohiuddin%3BShariful+Islam%2C+Mohammad%3BAhsan%2C+Raquib&rft.aulast=Ahmed&rft.aufirst=Mohiuddin&rft.date=2012-01-01&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=Bundle+P&rft.spage=2375&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=The+Electronic+Journal+of+Geotechnical+Engineering&rft.issn=1089-3032&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.ejge.com/2012/Ppr12.190clr.pdf http://www.ejge.com/Index_ejge.htm LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2015, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2015-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 33 N1 - PubXState - OK N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 5 tables, sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2015-11-05 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Asia; Bangladesh; body waves; clastic sediments; clay; Dhaka Bangladesh; dynamic loading; dynamic properties; elastic waves; engineering properties; finite element analysis; foundations; Indian Peninsula; lateral loading; layered materials; loading; Mirpur Site; penetration tests; piles; S-waves; sediments; seismic response; seismic waves; soil mechanics; soil-structure interface; stiff clays; stiffness; substrates; urban environment; urbanization; Uttara Site ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Asphalt Pavement Analyzer Used to Assess Rutting Susceptibility of Hot-Mix Asphalt Designed for High Tire Pressure Aircraft AN - 1671584709; 17757584 AB - Hot-mix asphalt (HMA) laboratory mix design is intended to determine the proportion of aggregate and binder that, when mixed and compacted under a specified effort, will withstand anticipated loading conditions. Current mix design procedures that use the Superpave( registered ) gyratory compactor rely on the engineering properties and volumetrics of the compacted mixture to ensure reliable performance; however, a definitive performance test does not exist. The asphalt pavement analyzer (APA) was evaluated as a tool for assessing HMA mixtures designed to perform under high tire pressure aircraft following FAA specifications. The APA used in this study was specially designed to test simulated high tire pressures of 250 psi, which are becoming more common for aircraft. Thirty-three HMA mixtures were included in the study. Each was designed with the Superpave gyratory compactor, according to preliminary criteria being developed by FAA. The study included some mixtures that contain excessive percentages of natural sand and that do not meet FAA criteria. These mixtures were included to provide relative performance for mixtures expected to exhibit premature rutting. APA testing with the high tire pressure APA resulted in rapid failure of HMA specimens compared with traditional APA testing at lower pressures. Data were analyzed, with a focus on the provision of acceptance recommendations for mixtures to support high tire pressures. A preliminary 10-mm rut depth criterion after 4,000 load cycles is recommended. JF - Transportation Research Record AU - Rushing, John F AU - Little, Dallas N AU - Garg, Navneet AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, CEERD-GM-A, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 Y1 - 2012 PY - 2012 DA - 2012 SP - 97 EP - 105 PB - Transportation Research Board VL - 4 IS - 2294 SN - 0361-1981, 0361-1981 KW - Environmental Engineering Abstracts (EN); CSA / ASCE Civil Engineering Abstracts (CE); Aerospace & High Technology Database (AH) KW - Pavements KW - Transportation KW - Aircraft KW - Sand KW - Asphalt KW - Tires KW - Criteria KW - Compacting UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1671584709?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvironmentalengabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Transportation+Research+Record&rft.atitle=Asphalt+Pavement+Analyzer+Used+to+Assess+Rutting+Susceptibility+of+Hot-Mix+Asphalt+Designed+for+High+Tire+Pressure+Aircraft&rft.au=Rushing%2C+John+F%3BLittle%2C+Dallas+N%3BGarg%2C+Navneet&rft.aulast=Rushing&rft.aufirst=John&rft.date=2012-01-01&rft.volume=4&rft.issue=2294&rft.spage=97&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Transportation+Research+Record&rft.issn=03611981&rft_id=info:doi/10.3141%2F2296-10 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-04-01 N1 - Number of references - 18 N1 - Last updated - 2015-04-09 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2296-10 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - What are the key parameters for soil hydrological models in climate impact studies under different settings? AN - 1447103080; 2013-083664 AB - As climate models become more and more accurate and climate change becomes less deniable, a demand for applications of various impact models grows stronger. The impact on groundwater budget is often calculated by numerical models, such as SWAP and HYDRUS, using the Penman-Monteith-equation for potential and actual evapotranspiration and the Richards equation (using van Genuchten-Mualem-parameter) for water movement in the vadose zone. On the one hand, using such a detailed model has the advantage to identify seasonal shiftings in the soil water budget; on the other hand applying those models to the meso-scale has the drawback of a high data demand. To show whether an impact model is reliable enough to explain the impact of climate change on the target parameter (e.g. groundwater recharge) its sensitivity to parameter variation has to be tested. Sensitivity studies can also indicate which parameters can be neglected and which need to be investigated in more detail. Two calibrated SWAP models have been applied to estimate the impact of climate change on the water budget for an upland and a polder location. While the first site is a typical groundwater recharge area, the latter is a ditch-drained area where permanent groundwater discharge occurs. For both sites, climate projections from two regional climate models (CLM and REMO) driven by the general circulation model ECHAM5 have been used. The results from two realizations of the SRES CO2-scenarios A1B, B1 and A2 as well as the C20 reference period were available. Instead of using the data directly, two different bias correction methods were applied: a linear bias correction method and the so-called quantile mapping method. The Cramer-von Mises criterion has been applied to show which method is applicable for each site. Afterwards, two sensitivity tests were conducted. The Model-Scenario-Ratio (MSR) has been applied to identify the effect of parameter uncertainty on the relative impact of climate change on the oil water budget. The Scenario-Uncertainty-Ratio (SUR), which we adapted from the MSR, identifies whether the impact of the parameter uncertainty or the climate change impact is stronger. As a result we see that different hydrological settings show different parameters to be sensitive in terms of water budget. While crop and meteorological parameters are sensitive for the upland site, soil and drainage parameters are shown to be more important for the polder site. The study shows that process-oriented model-codes can be applied to meso-scale, if an appropriate sensitivity study is carried out to identify parameters that can be neglected for regionalization. JF - IAHS-AISH Publication AU - Palm, Joachim AU - Stoefen, H AU - Duijnisveld, W H M AU - Schneider, W Y1 - 2012 PY - 2012 DA - 2012 SP - 320 EP - 326 PB - International Association of Hydrological Sciences VL - 355 SN - 0144-7815, 0144-7815 KW - aquifer vulnerability KW - water quality KW - climatic controls KW - SWAP KW - Europe KW - climate change KW - ground water KW - hydrologic cycle KW - sensitivity analysis KW - Central Europe KW - soil-water balance KW - HYDRUS KW - discharge KW - uncertainty KW - polders KW - water use KW - hydrology KW - statistical analysis KW - regional planning KW - water balance KW - Hamburg Germany KW - aquifers KW - models KW - recharge KW - Germany KW - water resources KW - land use KW - 21:Hydrogeology KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1447103080?accountid=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=IAHS-AISH+Publication&rft.atitle=What+are+the+key+parameters+for+soil+hydrological+models+in+climate+impact+studies+under+different+settings%3F&rft.au=Palm%2C+Joachim%3BStoefen%2C+H%3BDuijnisveld%2C+W+H+M%3BSchneider%2C+W&rft.aulast=Palm&rft.aufirst=Joachim&rft.date=2012-01-01&rft.volume=355&rft.issue=&rft.spage=320&rft.isbn=9781907161346&rft.btitle=&rft.title=IAHS-AISH+Publication&rft.issn=01447815&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - ModelCARE 2011 N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2013, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2013-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 20 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 2 tables N1 - Last updated - 2013-10-31 N1 - CODEN - PIHSD9 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - aquifer vulnerability; aquifers; Central Europe; climate change; climatic controls; discharge; Europe; Germany; ground water; Hamburg Germany; hydrologic cycle; hydrology; HYDRUS; land use; models; polders; recharge; regional planning; sensitivity analysis; soil-water balance; statistical analysis; SWAP; uncertainty; water balance; water quality; water resources; water use ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Bacterial endophyte communities of two wheatgrass varieties following propagation in different growing media AN - 1439219719; 18512816 AB - Bacterial endophyte communities of two wheatgrass varieties currently being used in the revegetation of military training ranges were studied. Culturable and direct 16S rDNA PCR amplification techniques were used to describe bacterial communities present in Siberian and slender wheatgrass seeds, leaf tissues, and root tissues following propagation in either sand or a peat-based growing mix. Our hypothesis was that the resulting plant endophytic communities would be distinct, showing not only the presence of endophytes originating from the seed but also the characteristics of growth in the two different growing media. Both culture and culture-independent assays showed the likely translocation of Actinobacteria, Firmicutes, and Gammaproteobacteria from seed to mature plant tissues as well as subsequent colonization by exogenous organisms. Statistical analysis of 16S terminal restriction fragment profiles identified growing media as having a greater significant effect on the formation of the endpoint endophytic communities than either plant tissue or wheatgrass variety. In silico digests of the ribosomal database produced putative identifications indicating an increase in overall species diversity and increased relative abundances of Firmicutes and Cyanobacteria following propagation in sand and Betaproteobacteria following propagation in the peat-based growing mix. Results indicated a substantial translocation of endophytes from seed to mature plant tissues for both growing media and that growing medium was a dominant determinant of the final taxonomy of the endpoint plant endophytic communities.Original Abstract: Les communautes de bacteries endophytes de deux varietes de plantes herbacees utilisees couramment dans la vegetalisation de champs d'entrainement militaire ont ete etudies. Des techniques de culture et d'amplification d'ADNr 16S par PCR directe ont ete utilisees pour decrire les communautes bacteriennes presentes dans les semences, les feuilles et les racines de l'Agropyre de Siberie (ou Agropyre fragile) et de l'Elyme a chaumes rudes, apres propagation dans le sable ou dans un terreau a base de tourbe. Notre hypothese etait que les communautes resultantes d'endophytes seraient distinctes, revelant non seulement la presence d'endophytes provenant des semences, mais possedant aussi des caracteristiques de croissance differentes selon les deux milieux de croissance. Les tests dependants et independants de la culture ont montre une translocation probable des Actinobacteria, Firmicutes et Gammaproteobacteria des semences vers les tissus des plantes matures, ainsi qu'une colonisation subsequente par des organismes exogenes. Une analyse statistique des profils des fragments de restriction terminaux de l'ADNr 16S a permis de determiner que le milieu de croissance avait un effet significatif plus important dans la formation des communautes d'endophytes finales que le type de tissu ou la variete d'herbacee. Des digestions in silico realisees a partir d'une base de donnees ribosomale ont genere des identifications possibles indiquant une augmentation globale de la diversite des especes et une augmentation relative de l'abondance des Firmicutes et des Cyanobateria a la suite d'une propagation dans le sable, et des Betaproteobacteria a la suite de la propagation dans le terreau a base de tourbe. Les resultats ont revele une translocation substantielle des endophytes des semences vers les tissus des plantes matures dans les deux milieux de croissance, et ont indique que le milieu de croissance etait un determinant dominant dans la composition taxonomique des communautes finales d'endophytes des plantes. JF - Canadian Journal of Microbiology/Revue Canadienne de Microbiologie AU - Ringelberg, D AU - Foley, K AU - Reynolds, C M AD - US Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, 72 Lyme Road, Hanover, NH 03755, USA., david.b.ringelberg@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2012/01// PY - 2012 DA - Jan 2012 SP - 67 EP - 80 PB - NRC Research Press VL - 58 IS - 1 SN - 0008-4166, 0008-4166 KW - Microbiology Abstracts B: Bacteriology KW - Seeds KW - Endophytes KW - Revegetation KW - Leaves KW - Statistical analysis KW - Roots KW - Firmicutes KW - Databases KW - Colonization KW - Cyanobacteria KW - Sand KW - Actinobacteria KW - Species diversity KW - Plant communities KW - Polymerase chain reaction KW - Taxonomy KW - rRNA 16S KW - Translocation KW - Propagation KW - Media (culture) KW - J 02310:Genetics & Taxonomy UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1439219719?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Amicrobiologyb&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Canadian+Journal+of+Microbiology%2FRevue+Canadienne+de+Microbiologie&rft.atitle=Bacterial+endophyte+communities+of+two+wheatgrass+varieties+following+propagation+in+different+growing+media&rft.au=Ringelberg%2C+D%3BFoley%2C+K%3BReynolds%2C+C+M&rft.aulast=Ringelberg&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2012-01-01&rft.volume=58&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=67&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Canadian+Journal+of+Microbiology%2FRevue+Canadienne+de+Microbiologie&rft.issn=00084166&rft_id=info:doi/10.1139%2Fw11-122 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-10-01 N1 - Number of references - 40 N1 - Last updated - 2013-12-16 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Seeds; Endophytes; Revegetation; Statistical analysis; Leaves; Roots; Colonization; Databases; Sand; Species diversity; Plant communities; Polymerase chain reaction; Taxonomy; Translocation; rRNA 16S; Media (culture); Propagation; Cyanobacteria; Actinobacteria; Firmicutes DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/w11-122 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Development of Laboratory Testing Protocol for Rapid-Setting Cementitious Material for Airfield Pavement Repairs AN - 1291600717; 17630541 AB - Many commercial off-the-shelf products for repairing portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements provide short set times, high early strengths, and the durability to withstand aircraft traffic. Twenty-five rapid-setting cementitious materials were investigated through laboratory and field evaluations to determine their suitability for repairing critical PCC airfield pavements. Standard laboratory tests were performed to characterize the properties of the materials and provide a protocol for assessing their suitability for field repairs. Criteria for using rapid-setting cementitious materials for repairing airfield pavements were published in 2008 by the U.S. Air Force. The criteria, based on laboratory and full-scale testing, allowed users to reduce the risk of premature failure of repairs by omitting unacceptable materials from their list of potential repair materials. The American Society of Testing and Materials published a similar test protocol in 2009. On the basis of a comparison of these two certification procedures and knowledge gained through field experience, the Air Force selection protocol was further updated in 2010 to improve the material selection process. The laboratory test methods used to develop the selection protocol along with the results from the material investigations are discussed in this paper. JF - Transportation Research Record AU - Priddy, Lucy P AU - Rushing, Timothy W AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, CEERD-GM-A, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199, lucy.p.priddy@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2012 PY - 2012 DA - 2012 SP - 89 EP - 98 PB - Transportation Research Board IS - 2290 SN - 0361-1981, 0361-1981 KW - Risk Abstracts KW - USA KW - Transportation KW - Laboratory testing KW - Aircraft KW - Cement KW - Certification KW - Risk reduction KW - Concrete KW - Traffic KW - R2 23020:Technological risks UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1291600717?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ariskabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Transportation+Research+Record&rft.atitle=Development+of+Laboratory+Testing+Protocol+for+Rapid-Setting+Cementitious+Material+for+Airfield+Pavement+Repairs&rft.au=Priddy%2C+Lucy+P%3BRushing%2C+Timothy+W&rft.aulast=Priddy&rft.aufirst=Lucy&rft.date=2012-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=2290&rft.spage=89&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Transportation+Research+Record&rft.issn=03611981&rft_id=info:doi/10.3141%2F2290-12 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-01 N1 - Number of references - 18 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-19 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Transportation; Cement; Aircraft; Laboratory testing; Risk reduction; Certification; Concrete; Traffic; USA DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2290-12 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Prediction and uncertainty of free convection phenomena in porous media AN - 1244677472; 2013-008104 AB - Over the past few decades, groundwater flow and solute transport models have been commonly used to make predictions of complex, highly nonlinear, semichaotic free convective processes in various hydrogeologic settings. However, there has been much confusion in the literature about the ability of models to make reliable predictions of free convection phenomena. Particularly, different model codes and numerical schemes have been observed to give different solutions to the same problem. Attempts to match the precise nature of finger patterns in space and time have been somewhat unsuccessful. The classical notion of grid convergence appears to be nonmeaningful in the context of these processes when attempting to compare the complex fingering patterns. This study examines the predictability of a highly unstable free convective flow system by quantitatively investigating several representative plume characteristics. These characteristics include "microscopic" features such as the number of fingers and deepest plume front, and "macroscopic" features such as vertical center of solute mass, total solute mass, and solute flux through the source zone. Surprisingly, both microscopic and macroscopic variables can be estimated with a small degree of uncertainty. It is shown that the microscopic variables have slightly greater uncertainty than macroscopic variables. This indicates a greater degree of predictability in free convection systems than may have been previously thought to exist. It also suggests that a paradigm shift which analyses free convection in a stochastic rather than deterministic framework is required. This has significant consequences for model simulation and testing as well as process prediction. JF - Water Resources Research AU - Xie, Yueqing AU - Simmons, Craig T AU - Werner, Adrian D AU - Diersch, Hans J G Y1 - 2012 PY - 2012 DA - 2012 EP - Citation W02535 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 48 IS - 2 SN - 0043-1397, 0043-1397 KW - solute transport KW - numerical analysis KW - data processing KW - prediction KW - porous materials KW - equations KW - preferential flow KW - convection KW - ground water KW - transport KW - quantitative analysis KW - mathematical methods KW - digital simulation KW - uncertainty KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1244677472?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Water+Resources+Research&rft.atitle=Prediction+and+uncertainty+of+free+convection+phenomena+in+porous+media&rft.au=Xie%2C+Yueqing%3BSimmons%2C+Craig+T%3BWerner%2C+Adrian+D%3BDiersch%2C+Hans+J+G&rft.aulast=Xie&rft.aufirst=Yueqing&rft.date=2012-01-01&rft.volume=48&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Water+Resources+Research&rft.issn=00431397&rft_id=info:doi/10.1029%2F2011WR011346 L2 - http://www.agu.org/journals/wr/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2013, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by, and/or abstract, Copyright, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, United States N1 - Date revised - 2013-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 51 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table N1 - SuppNotes - Includes appendices N1 - Last updated - 2012-12-27 N1 - CODEN - WRERAQ N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - convection; data processing; digital simulation; equations; ground water; mathematical methods; numerical analysis; porous materials; prediction; preferential flow; quantitative analysis; solute transport; transport; uncertainty DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011WR011346 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Effects of in situ remediation using oxidants or surfactants on subsurface organic matter and sorption of trichloroethene AN - 1030490199; 2012-069324 AB - In situ remediation technologies have the potential to alter subsurface properties such as natural organic matter (NOM) content or character, which could affect the organic carbon-water partitioning behavior of chlorinated organic solvents, including dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs). Laboratory experiments were completed to determine the nature and extent of changes in the partitioning behavior of trichloroethene (TCE) caused by in situ chemical oxidation or in situ surfactant flushing. Sandy porous media were obtained from the subsurface at a site in Orlando, Florida. Experiments were run using soil slurries in zero-headspace reactors (ZHRs) following a factorial design to study the effects of porous media properties (sand vs. loamy sand with different total organic carbon [TOC] contents), TCE concentration (DNAPL presence or absence), and remediation agent type (potassium permanganate vs. activated sodium persulfate, Dowfax 8390 vs. Tween 80). Results revealed that the fraction of organic carbon (f (sub oc) ) of porous media after treatment by oxidants or surfactants was higher or lower relative to that in the untreated media controls. Isotherm experiments were run using the treated and control media to measure the distribution coefficient (K (sub d) ) of TCE. Organic carbon-water partitioning coefficient values (K (sub oc) ) calculated from the experimental data revealed that K (sub oc) values for TCE in the porous media were altered via treatment using oxidants and surfactants. This alteration can affect the validity of estimates of contaminant mass remaining after remediation. Thus, potential changes in partitioning behavior should be considered to help avoid decision errors when judging the effectiveness of an in situ remediation technology. Abstract Copyright (2012), National Ground Water Association. JF - Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation AU - Pan, Leanna Woods AU - Siegrist, Robert L AU - Crimi, Michelle Y1 - 2012 PY - 2012 DA - 2012 SP - 96 EP - 105 PB - Wiley-Blackwell on behalf of National Ground Water Association, Malden, MA VL - 32 IS - 2 SN - 1069-3629, 1069-3629 KW - United States KW - chlorinated hydrocarbons KW - sorption KW - contaminant plumes KW - data acquisition KW - data processing KW - Orlando Florida KW - dense nonaqueous phase liquids KW - Florida KW - remediation KW - ground water KW - partitioning KW - solvents KW - water treatment KW - halogenated hydrocarbons KW - soils KW - monitoring KW - in situ KW - oxidation KW - statistical analysis KW - pollution KW - porous materials KW - adsorption KW - correlation coefficient KW - aquifers KW - nonaqueous phase liquids KW - organic compounds KW - isotherms KW - Orange County Florida KW - surfactants KW - trichloroethylene KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1030490199?accountid=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+Monitoring+%26+Remediation&rft.atitle=Effects+of+in+situ+remediation+using+oxidants+or+surfactants+on+subsurface+organic+matter+and+sorption+of+trichloroethene&rft.au=Pan%2C+Leanna+Woods%3BSiegrist%2C+Robert+L%3BCrimi%2C+Michelle&rft.aulast=Pan&rft.aufirst=Leanna&rft.date=2012-01-01&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=96&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Ground+Water+Monitoring+%26+Remediation&rft.issn=10693629&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111%2Fj.1745-6592.2011.01377.x L2 - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1745-6592 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2016, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, United Kingdom N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 29 N1 - PubXState - MA N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 5 tables N1 - Last updated - 2016-10-25 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - adsorption; aquifers; chlorinated hydrocarbons; contaminant plumes; correlation coefficient; data acquisition; data processing; dense nonaqueous phase liquids; Florida; ground water; halogenated hydrocarbons; in situ; isotherms; monitoring; nonaqueous phase liquids; Orange County Florida; organic compounds; Orlando Florida; oxidation; partitioning; pollution; porous materials; remediation; soils; solvents; sorption; statistical analysis; surfactants; trichloroethylene; United States; water treatment DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6592.2011.01377.x ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Reflections on the nexus of politics, ethics, religion and contemporary water resources decisions AN - 1020841201; 16770513 AB - The ways we discuss water policy decisions often closely mirror broader social and ethical decisions, for example: water as a common good; water and human dignity; water as a facilitator of well being; rights and responsibilities of access to water; justice and water. Water is a symbol of reconciliation, healing and regeneration which appears in virtually all of our known organized faith-based religions. Water decisions truly seem to be at the nexus of ethics, public policies, nature, values, beliefs and rationality. This paper opens windows into this nexus by starting with selected water policy arenas (arenas not generally thought to contain dimensions of ethics and faith) and generalizing about the dilemmas presented by decisions in them. These arenas are: dealing with risk/uncertainty in water and climate change decisions; changing terms of discourse on world water, especially between rich and poor; concepts of nature in water decision making; dealing with water and conflict; and processes of governance and water decisions. The paper concludes with suggestions of how ethics and faith might connect in decisions concerning water. JF - Water Policy AU - Priscoli, Jerome Delli AD - BOG World Water Council; Institute for Water Resources USACE, Editor in Chief: Water Policy., priscoli@erols.com Y1 - 2012///0, PY - 2012 DA - 0, 2012 SP - 21 EP - 40 PB - IWA Publishing, Alliance House London SW1H 0QS United Kingdom VL - 14 IS - S1 SN - 1366-7017, 1366-7017 KW - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Aqualine Abstracts; Sustainability Science Abstracts; Environment Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Politics KW - Climate change KW - Water resources KW - Public Policy KW - Decision Making KW - Water Policy KW - Ethics KW - regeneration KW - Responsibility KW - Public policy KW - Risk KW - Regeneration KW - Conflicts KW - Water Resources KW - Water policy KW - AQ 00006:Sewage KW - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development KW - SW 4050:Water law and institutions KW - ENA 16:Renewable Resources-Water KW - Q2 09124:Coastal zone management UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020841201?accountid=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+Policy&rft.atitle=Reflections+on+the+nexus+of+politics%2C+ethics%2C+religion+and+contemporary+water+resources+decisions&rft.au=Priscoli%2C+Jerome+Delli&rft.aulast=Priscoli&rft.aufirst=Jerome&rft.date=2012-01-01&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=S1&rft.spage=21&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Water+Policy&rft.issn=13667017&rft_id=info:doi/10.2166%2Fwp.2012.002 L2 - http://www.iwaponline.com/wp/014S1/wp014S10021.htm LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-07-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Climate change; Water resources; Water policy; regeneration; Responsibility; Politics; Ethics; Conflicts; Public policy; Risk; Water Policy; Regeneration; Public Policy; Decision Making; Water Resources DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wp.2012.002 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Field Test and Finite-Element Model of a Skewed Railroad Truss Bridge AN - 1019641287; 16421802 AB - The skew angle affects the geometry and design of a bridge in many ways. For example, skew angles greater than 20 degree will affect the bending moment and the shear force in an exterior beam. The U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center performed a full-scale load test on a skewed railroad steel truss bridge at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, in July, 2007. The superstructure of the bridge was instrumented with 42 reusable strain transducers to accurately measure the structure's response to a 260 kip train engine. Analyses were carried out to determine the effect of the skew angle in that response. A three-dimensional finite-element model (FEM) was developed from the data collected during the load test. The measured internal axial forces compared satisfactorily with the results from the FEM analysis. After the calibration of the model, the results indicated that the skew angle decreased the internal axial forces by approximately 16%, which was comparable to current design practice. JF - Journal of Bridge Engineering AU - Diaz-Alvarez, H AU - Mlakar, P AU - Mckenna, M AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. Y1 - 2012/01// PY - 2012 DA - January 2012 SP - 165 EP - 167 PB - American Society of Civil Engineers, 345 E. 47th St. New York NY 10017-2398 United States VL - 17 IS - 1 SN - 1084-0702, 1084-0702 KW - Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - Finite element method KW - Railroad bridges KW - Skewed structures KW - Steel KW - Trusses KW - Field tests KW - Bridges KW - Transducers KW - Model Testing KW - Field Tests KW - Hardwood KW - Model Studies KW - Bridge Design KW - Calibrations KW - Railroads KW - Finite Element Method KW - USA, Missouri KW - Research KW - Deformation KW - Modelling KW - SW 5040:Data acquisition KW - Q2 09202:Methods and instruments UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1019641287?accountid=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+Bridge+Engineering&rft.atitle=Field+Test+and+Finite-Element+Model+of+a+Skewed+Railroad+Truss+Bridge&rft.au=Diaz-Alvarez%2C+H%3BMlakar%2C+P%3BMckenna%2C+M&rft.aulast=Diaz-Alvarez&rft.aufirst=H&rft.date=2012-01-01&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=165&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Bridge+Engineering&rft.issn=10840702&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F%28ASCE%29BE.1943-5592.0000211 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-10-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Bridges; Transducers; Research; Modelling; Deformation; Bridge Design; Calibrations; Railroads; Finite Element Method; Field Tests; Model Testing; Hardwood; Model Studies; USA, Missouri DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000211 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Geology metrics for predicting shoreline change using seabed and sub-bottom observations from the surf zone and nearshore AN - 1017952201; 2012-052198 JF - Special Publication of the International Association of Sedimentologists AU - McNinch, Jesse E AU - Miselis, Jennifer L Y1 - 2012 PY - 2012 DA - 2012 SP - 99 EP - 120 PB - Blackwell, Oxford VL - 44 SN - 0141-3600, 0141-3600 KW - United States KW - geophysical surveys KW - cores KW - vertical seismic profiles KW - acoustical methods KW - marine sediments KW - Outer Banks KW - bottom features KW - sediments KW - ocean floors KW - Northwest Atlantic KW - seismic profiles KW - surf zones KW - paleochannels KW - geophysical methods KW - bars KW - shorelines KW - nearshore environment KW - seismic methods KW - North Carolina KW - surveys KW - geophysical profiles KW - bathymetry KW - North Atlantic KW - sonar methods KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - 20:Applied geophysics KW - 07:Oceanography UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1017952201?accountid=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=Special+Publication+of+the+International+Association+of+Sedimentologists&rft.atitle=Geology+metrics+for+predicting+shoreline+change+using+seabed+and+sub-bottom+observations+from+the+surf+zone+and+nearshore&rft.au=McNinch%2C+Jesse+E%3BMiselis%2C+Jennifer+L&rft.aulast=McNinch&rft.aufirst=Jesse&rft.date=2012-01-01&rft.volume=44&rft.issue=&rft.spage=99&rft.isbn=9781118311172&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Special+Publication+of+the+International+Association+of+Sedimentologists&rft.issn=01413600&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2F9781118311172.ch5 L2 - http://www.sedimentologists.org/publications/special-publications LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 59 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sects., sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2014-03-14 N1 - CODEN - SPISDS N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - acoustical methods; Atlantic Ocean; bars; bathymetry; bottom features; cores; geophysical methods; geophysical profiles; geophysical surveys; marine sediments; nearshore environment; North Atlantic; North Carolina; Northwest Atlantic; ocean floors; Outer Banks; paleochannels; sediments; seismic methods; seismic profiles; shorelines; sonar methods; surf zones; surveys; United States; vertical seismic profiles DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118311172.ch5 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Effect of near-surface hydrology on soil strength and mobility AN - 1011393182; 2012-043516 AB - History has repeatedly demonstrated the potentially negative influence of near-surface hydrology on military mobility. Increased moisture and saturation in soil results in a transition from solid to somewhat liquid states. As soil approaches the liquid state, the shear strength available for supporting traffic of ground vehicles or aircraft diminishes. Historical engagements elucidate the importance for armies to recognize soil conditions that could compromise manoeuvre. Since World War II, the US Army has pursued research aimed at equipping soldiers with the tools and knowledge needed to account for the impact of near-surface hydrology on mobility. Significant portions of the research have been focused on characterizing soil trafficability as a controlling factor in ground vehicle mobility and on developing methods for rapidly assessing soil conditions to ensure adequate bearing capacity for expediently constructed roads and airfields. In contrast, hydrological conditions can also produce extremely dry soil with potential for surface layers to break down under ground vehicle and aircraft traffic loadings, resulting in a propensity for extreme dust generation, an entirely different problem for military mobility that the research has also been addressing. Mobility problems associated with these adverse soil conditions have not been eliminated, but the research has produced significant advancements. JF - Geological Society Special Publications AU - Priddy, Jody D AU - Berney, Ernest S, IV AU - Peters, John F A2 - Rose, Edward P. F. A2 - Mather, John D. Y1 - 2012 PY - 2012 DA - 2012 SP - 301 EP - 320 PB - Geological Society of London, London VL - 362 SN - 0305-8719, 0305-8719 KW - soil mechanics KW - shear strength KW - penetration tests KW - clastic sediments KW - bearing capacity KW - strength KW - moisture KW - cone penetration tests KW - prediction KW - trafficability KW - mud KW - military geology KW - fine-grained materials KW - dust KW - sediments KW - water content KW - vehicles KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1011393182?accountid=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=Geological+Society+Special+Publications&rft.atitle=Effect+of+near-surface+hydrology+on+soil+strength+and+mobility&rft.au=Priddy%2C+Jody+D%3BBerney%2C+Ernest+S%2C+IV%3BPeters%2C+John+F&rft.aulast=Priddy&rft.aufirst=Jody&rft.date=2012-01-01&rft.volume=362&rft.issue=&rft.spage=301&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Geological+Society+Special+Publications&rft.issn=03058719&rft_id=info:doi/10.1144%2FSP362.17 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from The Geological Society, London, London, United Kingdom N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 44 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GSLSBW N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - bearing capacity; clastic sediments; cone penetration tests; dust; fine-grained materials; military geology; moisture; mud; penetration tests; prediction; sediments; shear strength; soil mechanics; strength; trafficability; vehicles; water content DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP362.17 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Using computer simulation to explore the importance of hydrogeology in remote sensing for explosive threat detection AN - 1011393176; 2012-043515 AB - Finding explosive threats in complex environments is a challenge. Benign objects (e.g. rocks, plants and rubbish), ground surface variation, heterogeneous soil properties and even shadows can create anomalies in remotely sensed imagery, often triggering false alarms. The overarching goal is to dissect these complex sensor images to extract clues for reducing false alarms and improve threat detection. Of particular interest is the effect of soil properties, particularly hydrogeological properties, on physical temperatures at the ground surface and the signatures they produce in infrared imagery. Hydrogeological variability must be considered at the scale of the sensor's image pixels, which may be only a few centimetres. To facilitate a deeper understanding of the components of the energy distribution, a computational testbed was developed to produce realistic, process-correct, synthetic imagery from remote sensors operating in the visible and infrared portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. This tool is being used to explore near-surface process interaction at a fine scale to isolate and quantify the phenomena behind the detection physics. The computational tools have confirmed the importance of hydrogeology in the exploitation of sensor imagery for threat detection. However, before this tool's potential becomes a reality, several technical and organizational problems must be overcome. JF - Geological Society Special Publications AU - Howington, Stacy E AU - Peters, John F AU - Ballard, J R, Jr AU - Eslinger, O J AU - Fairley, J R AU - Kala, R V AU - Goodson, R A AU - Price, S J AU - Hines, A M AU - Wakeley, L D A2 - Rose, Edward P. F. A2 - Mather, John D. Y1 - 2012 PY - 2012 DA - 2012 SP - 287 EP - 300 PB - Geological Society of London, London VL - 362 SN - 0305-8719, 0305-8719 KW - soils KW - technology KW - risk management KW - moisture KW - grain size KW - thermal properties KW - geophysical methods KW - data processing KW - simulation KW - depth KW - models KW - computer programs KW - military geology KW - infrared methods KW - explosives KW - detection KW - hydraulic conductivity KW - accuracy KW - permeability KW - remote sensing KW - field studies KW - 21:Hydrogeology KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1011393176?accountid=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=Geological+Society+Special+Publications&rft.atitle=Using+computer+simulation+to+explore+the+importance+of+hydrogeology+in+remote+sensing+for+explosive+threat+detection&rft.au=Howington%2C+Stacy+E%3BPeters%2C+John+F%3BBallard%2C+J+R%2C+Jr%3BEslinger%2C+O+J%3BFairley%2C+J+R%3BKala%2C+R+V%3BGoodson%2C+R+A%3BPrice%2C+S+J%3BHines%2C+A+M%3BWakeley%2C+L+D&rft.aulast=Howington&rft.aufirst=Stacy&rft.date=2012-01-01&rft.volume=362&rft.issue=&rft.spage=287&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Geological+Society+Special+Publications&rft.issn=03058719&rft_id=info:doi/10.1144%2FSP362.16 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from The Geological Society, London, London, United Kingdom N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 23 N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GSLSBW N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - accuracy; computer programs; data processing; depth; detection; explosives; field studies; geophysical methods; grain size; hydraulic conductivity; infrared methods; military geology; models; moisture; permeability; remote sensing; risk management; simulation; soils; technology; thermal properties DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP362.16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Opportunity-driven hydrological model development in US Army research and development programs AN - 1011393169; 2012-043514 AB - The US Army has compelling needs for making hydrological forecasts. These range from tactical predictions of water levels and soil moisture, to strategic protection of both Army and civilian assets and environmental resources. This paper discusses the history of hydrological model development by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as influenced by changes in needs and technologies. It concludes with a description of the Gridded Surface/Subsurface Hydrologic Analysis (GSSHA (super TM) ) model, a two-dimensional, structured-grid, physics-based hydrological, hydrodynamic, sediment and nutrient/contaminant transport model, developed over the past two decades, that is currently used by the USACE. The surface hydrology of the USA has been divided by the US Geological Survey into 21 major geographic domains that contain either the drainage area of a major river or the combined drainage areas of a series of rivers of similar character developed in one geographic province. Eighteen of the regions occupy the land area of the conterminous USA. Alaska, the Hawaiian Islands and Puerto Rico are separate domains. This approach provides a framework for the hydrological modelling discussed in this paper for sites within six of these regions. That the physics-based GSSHA modelling capability has so far been applied with success gives confidence in its more widespread application. JF - Geological Society Special Publications AU - Downer, Charles W AU - Ogden, Fred L AU - Martin, William D AU - Harmon, Russell S A2 - Rose, Edward P. F. A2 - Mather, John D. Y1 - 2012 PY - 2012 DA - 2012 SP - 267 EP - 286 PB - Geological Society of London, London VL - 362 SN - 0305-8719, 0305-8719 KW - United States KW - models KW - hydrology KW - history KW - case studies KW - military geology KW - government agencies KW - watersheds KW - current research KW - exploration KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1011393169?accountid=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=Geological+Society+Special+Publications&rft.atitle=Opportunity-driven+hydrological+model+development+in+US+Army+research+and+development+programs&rft.au=Downer%2C+Charles+W%3BOgden%2C+Fred+L%3BMartin%2C+William+D%3BHarmon%2C+Russell+S&rft.aulast=Downer&rft.aufirst=Charles&rft.date=2012-01-01&rft.volume=362&rft.issue=&rft.spage=267&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Geological+Society+Special+Publications&rft.issn=03058719&rft_id=info:doi/10.1144%2FSP362.15 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from The Geological Society, London, London, United Kingdom N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 51 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sketch maps N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GSLSBW N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - case studies; current research; exploration; government agencies; history; hydrology; military geology; models; United States; watersheds DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP362.15 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Morphodynamics of an anthropogenically altered dual-inlet system; John's Pass and Blind Pass, west-central Florida, USA AN - 1008820103; 2012-041660 AB - The morphodynamics of the John's Pass-Blind Pass dual inlet system were investigated based on hydrodynamic and morphology measurements, and numerical modeling. The co-existence of the dual inlets is realized by the dominance of mixed-energy John's Pass in terms of tidal prism and size of the ebb delta and the artificial maintenance of the wave-dominated migratory Blind Pass. Due to the secondary role of Blind Pass, the aggressive anthropogenic activities there do not seem to have a significant influence on the morphodynamics of John's Pass. On the other hand, the opening (in 1848) and subsequent evolution of John's Pass had substantial influence on Blind Pass, causing it to migrate rapidly to the south. In addition, anthropogenic activities had much more influence on the morphodynamics of the secondary Blind Pass than that of the dominating John's Pass. Results from numerical modeling provide a semi-quantitative understanding of the hydrodynamics and morphodynamics of John's Pass and Blind Pass in association with cold front passages, which have substantial influences on inlet morphology. Two large eddies are modeled from the interactions between the southward longshore current and John's Pass ebb and flood flow, respectively. These eddies are closely related to the morphodynamics of the channel margin linear bar and longshore transport divergence at the downdrift side. Both are key features of a mixed-energy inlet. The shallow water and wave-breaking-induced longshore current and elevated sediment suspension along the ebb delta terminal lobe provide the pathway for sediment bypassing. The morphodynamics of Blind Pass are dominated by wave forcing. The weak ebb jet is not capable of forming a sizable ebb delta and tends to be deflected by the strong longshore current, causing elevated longshore transport along the downdrift beach. The 90-degree turn of the inlet, which is common for wave-dominated migratory inlets, results in weak ebb flushing along the updrift (north) side of the inlet, and is responsible for the alongshore migration of the inlet before the artificial stabilization and sedimentation along the northern side of the inlet following stabilization. JF - Marine Geology AU - Wang, Ping AU - Beck, Tanya M Y1 - 2012/01// PY - 2012 DA - January 2012 SP - 162 EP - 175 PB - Elsevier, Amsterdam VL - 291-294 SN - 0025-3227, 0025-3227 KW - United States KW - Boca Ciega Bay KW - shore features KW - ocean circulation KW - Pinellas County Florida KW - numerical models KW - sediment transport KW - landform evolution KW - sedimentation KW - Treasure Island KW - Florida KW - tidal currents KW - tides KW - tidal inlets KW - transport KW - ocean waves KW - digital simulation KW - velocity KW - bathymetry KW - coastal sedimentation KW - 23:Geomorphology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1008820103?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Marine+Geology&rft.atitle=Morphodynamics+of+an+anthropogenically+altered+dual-inlet+system%3B+John%27s+Pass+and+Blind+Pass%2C+west-central+Florida%2C+USA&rft.au=Wang%2C+Ping%3BBeck%2C+Tanya+M&rft.aulast=Wang&rft.aufirst=Ping&rft.date=2012-01-01&rft.volume=291-294&rft.issue=&rft.spage=162&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Marine+Geology&rft.issn=00253227&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.margeo.2011.06.001 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00253227 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 47 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - MAGEA6 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - bathymetry; Boca Ciega Bay; coastal sedimentation; digital simulation; Florida; landform evolution; numerical models; ocean circulation; ocean waves; Pinellas County Florida; sediment transport; sedimentation; shore features; tidal currents; tidal inlets; tides; transport; Treasure Island; United States; velocity DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2011.06.001 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, MID-REACH SEGMENT, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, MID-REACH SEGMENT, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 963637272; 15188-2_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of a protective and recreational beach along 7.8 miles of shoreline known as the Mid-Reach in Brevard County, Florida is proposed. The project area is located on the east coast of Florida just south of Cape Canaveral and contains the municipalities of Satellite Beach, Indian Harbour Beach, and Melbourne and portions of unincorporated Brevard County. Beaches are in a state of severe erosion and shoreline recession. The Mid-Reach was previously studied as part of the Brevard County Shore Protection Project, but was removed from the recommended plan in the final EIS of 1996 due to concerns about impact to the nearshore hardbottom. The locally preferred plan (Local Option 6) is also the recommended plan in this final supplemental EIS. Local Option 6 would implement a small-scale dune and beach fill using beach-compatible sand from offshore borrow sources. The plan consists of a 10-foot extension of the mean high water line plus advanced nourishment to maintain that design fill volume in Reach 1, a 20-foot extension of the mean high water line plus advanced nourishment to maintain that design fill volume in Reaches 2 and 3, a 10-foot extension of the mean high water line plus advanced nourishment to maintain that design fill volume in Reaches 4 and 5, and a dune fill with no added advanced nourishment in Reach 6. The approximate volume of sand that would be placed includes an initial design fill of 445,000 cubic yards plus an advanced nourishment fill of 210,000 cubic yards for a total fill of 655,000 cubic yards at initial construction. Fill would be accomplished by rehabilitating the Poseidon dredged material management area (DMMA) at Port Canaveral, dredging material from Canaveral Shoals with placement into the Poseidon DMMA every six years, and hauling by dumptruck to the Mid-Reach for placement on the beach at three year intervals. Total cost of implementing the recommended plan over 50 years is estimated at $164.9 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would reduce damages caused by erosion and coastal storms, benefit recreational resources, and protect shoreline property. Erosion protection would vary along the length of the Mid-Reach from a 5-year storm level to a 75-year storm level. The project would yield an estimated $12.9 million annually through prevention of storm damage and incidental recreation benefits with a benefit-cost ratio of 3.1. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would disturb biotic habitats in the sand borrow areas and along the littoral zone in the immediate area of beach renourishment. It is anticipated that placement of sand would impact 3.0 acres of nearshore rock hardbottom resulting in the loss of a biologically significant marine ecosystem. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 09-0468D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft and final EIS, see 96-0290D, Volume 20, Number 3 and 96-0515F, Volume 20, Number 5, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110432, Final Supplemental EIS--302 pages, Appendices--1,134 pages, December 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Hurricanes KW - Marine Systems KW - Reefs KW - Recreation Resources KW - Safety Analyses KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/963637272?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HURRICANE+AND+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+MID-REACH+SEGMENT%2C+BREVARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=HURRICANE+AND+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+MID-REACH+SEGMENT%2C+BREVARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, MID-REACH SEGMENT, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, MID-REACH SEGMENT, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 963636797; 15188-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of a protective and recreational beach along 7.8 miles of shoreline known as the Mid-Reach in Brevard County, Florida is proposed. The project area is located on the east coast of Florida just south of Cape Canaveral and contains the municipalities of Satellite Beach, Indian Harbour Beach, and Melbourne and portions of unincorporated Brevard County. Beaches are in a state of severe erosion and shoreline recession. The Mid-Reach was previously studied as part of the Brevard County Shore Protection Project, but was removed from the recommended plan in the final EIS of 1996 due to concerns about impact to the nearshore hardbottom. The locally preferred plan (Local Option 6) is also the recommended plan in this final supplemental EIS. Local Option 6 would implement a small-scale dune and beach fill using beach-compatible sand from offshore borrow sources. The plan consists of a 10-foot extension of the mean high water line plus advanced nourishment to maintain that design fill volume in Reach 1, a 20-foot extension of the mean high water line plus advanced nourishment to maintain that design fill volume in Reaches 2 and 3, a 10-foot extension of the mean high water line plus advanced nourishment to maintain that design fill volume in Reaches 4 and 5, and a dune fill with no added advanced nourishment in Reach 6. The approximate volume of sand that would be placed includes an initial design fill of 445,000 cubic yards plus an advanced nourishment fill of 210,000 cubic yards for a total fill of 655,000 cubic yards at initial construction. Fill would be accomplished by rehabilitating the Poseidon dredged material management area (DMMA) at Port Canaveral, dredging material from Canaveral Shoals with placement into the Poseidon DMMA every six years, and hauling by dumptruck to the Mid-Reach for placement on the beach at three year intervals. Total cost of implementing the recommended plan over 50 years is estimated at $164.9 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would reduce damages caused by erosion and coastal storms, benefit recreational resources, and protect shoreline property. Erosion protection would vary along the length of the Mid-Reach from a 5-year storm level to a 75-year storm level. The project would yield an estimated $12.9 million annually through prevention of storm damage and incidental recreation benefits with a benefit-cost ratio of 3.1. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would disturb biotic habitats in the sand borrow areas and along the littoral zone in the immediate area of beach renourishment. It is anticipated that placement of sand would impact 3.0 acres of nearshore rock hardbottom resulting in the loss of a biologically significant marine ecosystem. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 09-0468D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft and final EIS, see 96-0290D, Volume 20, Number 3 and 96-0515F, Volume 20, Number 5, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110432, Final Supplemental EIS--302 pages, Appendices--1,134 pages, December 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Hurricanes KW - Marine Systems KW - Reefs KW - Recreation Resources KW - Safety Analyses KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/963636797?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HURRICANE+AND+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+MID-REACH+SEGMENT%2C+BREVARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=HURRICANE+AND+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+MID-REACH+SEGMENT%2C+BREVARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, MID-REACH SEGMENT, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 16373662; 15188 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of a protective and recreational beach along 7.8 miles of shoreline known as the Mid-Reach in Brevard County, Florida is proposed. The project area is located on the east coast of Florida just south of Cape Canaveral and contains the municipalities of Satellite Beach, Indian Harbour Beach, and Melbourne and portions of unincorporated Brevard County. Beaches are in a state of severe erosion and shoreline recession. The Mid-Reach was previously studied as part of the Brevard County Shore Protection Project, but was removed from the recommended plan in the final EIS of 1996 due to concerns about impact to the nearshore hardbottom. The locally preferred plan (Local Option 6) is also the recommended plan in this final supplemental EIS. Local Option 6 would implement a small-scale dune and beach fill using beach-compatible sand from offshore borrow sources. The plan consists of a 10-foot extension of the mean high water line plus advanced nourishment to maintain that design fill volume in Reach 1, a 20-foot extension of the mean high water line plus advanced nourishment to maintain that design fill volume in Reaches 2 and 3, a 10-foot extension of the mean high water line plus advanced nourishment to maintain that design fill volume in Reaches 4 and 5, and a dune fill with no added advanced nourishment in Reach 6. The approximate volume of sand that would be placed includes an initial design fill of 445,000 cubic yards plus an advanced nourishment fill of 210,000 cubic yards for a total fill of 655,000 cubic yards at initial construction. Fill would be accomplished by rehabilitating the Poseidon dredged material management area (DMMA) at Port Canaveral, dredging material from Canaveral Shoals with placement into the Poseidon DMMA every six years, and hauling by dumptruck to the Mid-Reach for placement on the beach at three year intervals. Total cost of implementing the recommended plan over 50 years is estimated at $164.9 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would reduce damages caused by erosion and coastal storms, benefit recreational resources, and protect shoreline property. Erosion protection would vary along the length of the Mid-Reach from a 5-year storm level to a 75-year storm level. The project would yield an estimated $12.9 million annually through prevention of storm damage and incidental recreation benefits with a benefit-cost ratio of 3.1. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would disturb biotic habitats in the sand borrow areas and along the littoral zone in the immediate area of beach renourishment. It is anticipated that placement of sand would impact 3.0 acres of nearshore rock hardbottom resulting in the loss of a biologically significant marine ecosystem. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 09-0468D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft and final EIS, see 96-0290D, Volume 20, Number 3 and 96-0515F, Volume 20, Number 5, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110432, Final Supplemental EIS--302 pages, Appendices--1,134 pages, December 30, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Hurricanes KW - Marine Systems KW - Reefs KW - Recreation Resources KW - Safety Analyses KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16373662?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HURRICANE+AND+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+MID-REACH+SEGMENT%2C+BREVARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=HURRICANE+AND+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+MID-REACH+SEGMENT%2C+BREVARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WILLIAM STATES LEE III NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1 AND 2, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, CHEROKEE COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - WILLIAM STATES LEE III NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1 AND 2, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, CHEROKEE COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 963637252; 15179-3_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined licenses for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactors at the William States Lee III Nuclear Station (Lee Nuclear Station) site in Cherokee County, South Carolina is proposed. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke) submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on December 12, 2007 for Lee Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2. This application was revised and a supplement describing Dukes plans to construct and operate a supplemental cooling water reservoir was submitted on September 24, 2009. The 1,900-acre site proposed for the two new nuclear units is the unfinished Cherokee Nuclear Station, located 40 miles southwest of Charlotte, 25 miles northeast of Spartanburg, and eight miles southeast of Gaffney. Duke would reactivate the 6.8-mile-long railroad spur from near Gaffney to the site for construction purposes. Lee Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 would have a design site grade of 590 feet above mean sea level. The containment vessel, shield building, and auxiliary building would make up the nuclear island, which is one of the principal structures of the standard Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) pressurized water reactor design. Each AP1000 reactor would be connected to two steam generators to drive turbines, thereby creating electricity. The AP1000 design is rated at 3,400 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a design gross-electrical output of 1,200 MW. The expected net electrical output for each unit would be 1,117 MW. The cooling system for Units 1 and 2 would include three constructed impoundments: Make-Up Pond A and Make-Up Pond B, which presently exist on the Lee Nuclear Station site, and Make-Up Pond C, which would be built on the London Creek watershed to the northwest of the Lee Nuclear Station site. Makeup water from the Broad River would be provided to the plant via Make-Up Pond A. During periods of low flow when withdrawals from the Broad River are limited, makeup water would be provided from Make-Up Ponds B and C to Make-Up Pond A. A portion of the makeup water would be returned to the Broad River via a discharge structure on the upstream side of Ninety-Nine Islands Dam. The remaining portion of the water would be released to the atmosphere via evaporative cooling through mechanical draft cooling towers. Two new transmission-line corridors, each containing one 230-kilovolt (kV) and one 525-kV transmission line, are also proposed. Liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste management systems would be used to collect and treat the radioactive materials produced as byproducts of operating Lee Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS considers energy source alternatives, alternative sites, system design alternatives, and on-site alternatives to reduce impacts on natural and cultural resources. The preliminary recommendation of NRC staff is that the operating licenses be issued as requested. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed units would provide for additional baseload electrical generating capacity in 2021 and 2023 within the service territories of Duke. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would affect surface water and underlying aquifers, including the Broad River and Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir, London Creek and its tributaries. Development of Make-Up Pond C would permanently inundate 620 acres, displace 260 acres of farmland, and require the purchase and demolition of 86 privately-owned residences. Proposed transmission lines would convert 690 acres of forest land to cleared corridors and displace 163 acres of farmland and 16.8 acres of wetlands and streams. A total of 1,115 acres of various habitat types would incur permanent and temporary loss and alteration. Construction and preconstruction traffic impacts would be noticeable, particularly on McKowns Mountain Road. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). JF - EPA number: 110423, Volume 1--731 pages, Volume 2--609 pages, December 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-2111 KW - Cooling Systems KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Pressurized Water Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Regulations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Broad River KW - South Carolina KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/963637252?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WILLIAM+STATES+LEE+III+NUCLEAR+STATION+UNITS+1+AND+2%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+CHEROKEE+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=WILLIAM+STATES+LEE+III+NUCLEAR+STATION+UNITS+1+AND+2%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+CHEROKEE+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WILLIAM STATES LEE III NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1 AND 2, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, CHEROKEE COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - WILLIAM STATES LEE III NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1 AND 2, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, CHEROKEE COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 963637160; 15179-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined licenses for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactors at the William States Lee III Nuclear Station (Lee Nuclear Station) site in Cherokee County, South Carolina is proposed. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke) submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on December 12, 2007 for Lee Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2. This application was revised and a supplement describing Dukes plans to construct and operate a supplemental cooling water reservoir was submitted on September 24, 2009. The 1,900-acre site proposed for the two new nuclear units is the unfinished Cherokee Nuclear Station, located 40 miles southwest of Charlotte, 25 miles northeast of Spartanburg, and eight miles southeast of Gaffney. Duke would reactivate the 6.8-mile-long railroad spur from near Gaffney to the site for construction purposes. Lee Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 would have a design site grade of 590 feet above mean sea level. The containment vessel, shield building, and auxiliary building would make up the nuclear island, which is one of the principal structures of the standard Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) pressurized water reactor design. Each AP1000 reactor would be connected to two steam generators to drive turbines, thereby creating electricity. The AP1000 design is rated at 3,400 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a design gross-electrical output of 1,200 MW. The expected net electrical output for each unit would be 1,117 MW. The cooling system for Units 1 and 2 would include three constructed impoundments: Make-Up Pond A and Make-Up Pond B, which presently exist on the Lee Nuclear Station site, and Make-Up Pond C, which would be built on the London Creek watershed to the northwest of the Lee Nuclear Station site. Makeup water from the Broad River would be provided to the plant via Make-Up Pond A. During periods of low flow when withdrawals from the Broad River are limited, makeup water would be provided from Make-Up Ponds B and C to Make-Up Pond A. A portion of the makeup water would be returned to the Broad River via a discharge structure on the upstream side of Ninety-Nine Islands Dam. The remaining portion of the water would be released to the atmosphere via evaporative cooling through mechanical draft cooling towers. Two new transmission-line corridors, each containing one 230-kilovolt (kV) and one 525-kV transmission line, are also proposed. Liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste management systems would be used to collect and treat the radioactive materials produced as byproducts of operating Lee Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS considers energy source alternatives, alternative sites, system design alternatives, and on-site alternatives to reduce impacts on natural and cultural resources. The preliminary recommendation of NRC staff is that the operating licenses be issued as requested. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed units would provide for additional baseload electrical generating capacity in 2021 and 2023 within the service territories of Duke. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would affect surface water and underlying aquifers, including the Broad River and Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir, London Creek and its tributaries. Development of Make-Up Pond C would permanently inundate 620 acres, displace 260 acres of farmland, and require the purchase and demolition of 86 privately-owned residences. Proposed transmission lines would convert 690 acres of forest land to cleared corridors and displace 163 acres of farmland and 16.8 acres of wetlands and streams. A total of 1,115 acres of various habitat types would incur permanent and temporary loss and alteration. Construction and preconstruction traffic impacts would be noticeable, particularly on McKowns Mountain Road. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). JF - EPA number: 110423, Volume 1--731 pages, Volume 2--609 pages, December 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-2111 KW - Cooling Systems KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Pressurized Water Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Regulations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Broad River KW - South Carolina KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/963637160?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WILLIAM+STATES+LEE+III+NUCLEAR+STATION+UNITS+1+AND+2%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+CHEROKEE+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=WILLIAM+STATES+LEE+III+NUCLEAR+STATION+UNITS+1+AND+2%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+CHEROKEE+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WILLIAM STATES LEE III NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1 AND 2, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, CHEROKEE COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - WILLIAM STATES LEE III NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1 AND 2, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, CHEROKEE COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 963637158; 15179-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined licenses for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactors at the William States Lee III Nuclear Station (Lee Nuclear Station) site in Cherokee County, South Carolina is proposed. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke) submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on December 12, 2007 for Lee Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2. This application was revised and a supplement describing Dukes plans to construct and operate a supplemental cooling water reservoir was submitted on September 24, 2009. The 1,900-acre site proposed for the two new nuclear units is the unfinished Cherokee Nuclear Station, located 40 miles southwest of Charlotte, 25 miles northeast of Spartanburg, and eight miles southeast of Gaffney. Duke would reactivate the 6.8-mile-long railroad spur from near Gaffney to the site for construction purposes. Lee Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 would have a design site grade of 590 feet above mean sea level. The containment vessel, shield building, and auxiliary building would make up the nuclear island, which is one of the principal structures of the standard Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) pressurized water reactor design. Each AP1000 reactor would be connected to two steam generators to drive turbines, thereby creating electricity. The AP1000 design is rated at 3,400 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a design gross-electrical output of 1,200 MW. The expected net electrical output for each unit would be 1,117 MW. The cooling system for Units 1 and 2 would include three constructed impoundments: Make-Up Pond A and Make-Up Pond B, which presently exist on the Lee Nuclear Station site, and Make-Up Pond C, which would be built on the London Creek watershed to the northwest of the Lee Nuclear Station site. Makeup water from the Broad River would be provided to the plant via Make-Up Pond A. During periods of low flow when withdrawals from the Broad River are limited, makeup water would be provided from Make-Up Ponds B and C to Make-Up Pond A. A portion of the makeup water would be returned to the Broad River via a discharge structure on the upstream side of Ninety-Nine Islands Dam. The remaining portion of the water would be released to the atmosphere via evaporative cooling through mechanical draft cooling towers. Two new transmission-line corridors, each containing one 230-kilovolt (kV) and one 525-kV transmission line, are also proposed. Liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste management systems would be used to collect and treat the radioactive materials produced as byproducts of operating Lee Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS considers energy source alternatives, alternative sites, system design alternatives, and on-site alternatives to reduce impacts on natural and cultural resources. The preliminary recommendation of NRC staff is that the operating licenses be issued as requested. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed units would provide for additional baseload electrical generating capacity in 2021 and 2023 within the service territories of Duke. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would affect surface water and underlying aquifers, including the Broad River and Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir, London Creek and its tributaries. Development of Make-Up Pond C would permanently inundate 620 acres, displace 260 acres of farmland, and require the purchase and demolition of 86 privately-owned residences. Proposed transmission lines would convert 690 acres of forest land to cleared corridors and displace 163 acres of farmland and 16.8 acres of wetlands and streams. A total of 1,115 acres of various habitat types would incur permanent and temporary loss and alteration. Construction and preconstruction traffic impacts would be noticeable, particularly on McKowns Mountain Road. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). JF - EPA number: 110423, Volume 1--731 pages, Volume 2--609 pages, December 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-2111 KW - Cooling Systems KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Pressurized Water Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Regulations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Broad River KW - South Carolina KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/963637158?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WILLIAM+STATES+LEE+III+NUCLEAR+STATION+UNITS+1+AND+2%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+CHEROKEE+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=WILLIAM+STATES+LEE+III+NUCLEAR+STATION+UNITS+1+AND+2%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+CHEROKEE+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH HILLSIDE ROAD EXTENSION, MANSFIELD, CONNECTICUT. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - NORTH HILLSIDE ROAD EXTENSION, MANSFIELD, CONNECTICUT. AN - 963636679; 15181-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of North Hillside Road on the Storrs campus of the University of Connecticut from its current terminus northward to US 44 in the town of Mansfield, Connecticut is proposed. The existing two-lane North Hillside Road begins at North Eagleville Road and extends 4,000 feet to the north terminating just north of the Charter Apartments. The proposed 3,400-foot extension would pass through a tract of land adjacent to the Storrs core academic campus, known as the North Campus, to US 44 between two parcels occupied by New Alliance Bank and Bank of America across from Professional Park Drive, creating a four-way intersection, approximately 2,000 feet west of Route 195 (Storrs Road). US 44 would be widened at the intersection with the proposed extension to add exclusive east bound and westbound left-turn lanes, an eastbound right-turn lane and a new traffic signal. The North Hillside Road approach to this intersection would be treated as a primary university entrance. The roadway extension has been contemplated since the 1970s, when the North Campus core area was considered for the development of a research and technology park. In 2005, approximately $6.0 million was appropriated by the federal government for the construction of North Hillside Road. Five alignment alternatives and a No Action Alternative were considered in the draft EIS of December 2008. This final EIS identifies the roadway alignment Option A and the North Campus development Alternative 2C as the preferred alternatives. Two wetland crossings have been re-designed to essentially eliminate wetland impacts and maintain habitat connectivity for aquatic resources and other wildlife. Additionally, the North Campus concept development plan (Alternative 2C) has been modified to eliminate the previously proposed development on Parcel A and preserve an additional 76 acres of land on the North Campus through a conservation easement. Alternative 2C would provide 1.2 million square feet of total building area and 4,475 parking spaces, while limiting total wetland disturbance. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new roadway would provide an additional entrance to the university, relieve traffic congestion on surrounding roads, and facilitate the development of the North Campus area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way would displace 2.3 acres of farmland, while the development of the North Campus parcels would impact 29.6 acres of farmland soils. Forested areas, encompassing 0.3 acre of wetlands, would be filled. These impacts would be mitigated through acre-for-acre replacement and conservation. Additional traffic expected in the North Campus area would reduce the level of service at several local intersections. Noise levels along the new facility would increase by 2.2 decibels, but remain below federal limits. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0086D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110425, 257 pages and maps, December 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CT-EIS-08-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Easements KW - Farmlands KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Universities KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Connecticut KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/963636679?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+HILLSIDE+ROAD+EXTENSION%2C+MANSFIELD%2C+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NORTH+HILLSIDE+ROAD+EXTENSION%2C+MANSFIELD%2C+CONNECTICUT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Glastonbury, Connecticut; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WILLIAM STATES LEE III NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1 AND 2, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, CHEROKEE COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - WILLIAM STATES LEE III NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1 AND 2, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, CHEROKEE COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 963636649; 15179-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined licenses for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactors at the William States Lee III Nuclear Station (Lee Nuclear Station) site in Cherokee County, South Carolina is proposed. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke) submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on December 12, 2007 for Lee Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2. This application was revised and a supplement describing Dukes plans to construct and operate a supplemental cooling water reservoir was submitted on September 24, 2009. The 1,900-acre site proposed for the two new nuclear units is the unfinished Cherokee Nuclear Station, located 40 miles southwest of Charlotte, 25 miles northeast of Spartanburg, and eight miles southeast of Gaffney. Duke would reactivate the 6.8-mile-long railroad spur from near Gaffney to the site for construction purposes. Lee Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 would have a design site grade of 590 feet above mean sea level. The containment vessel, shield building, and auxiliary building would make up the nuclear island, which is one of the principal structures of the standard Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) pressurized water reactor design. Each AP1000 reactor would be connected to two steam generators to drive turbines, thereby creating electricity. The AP1000 design is rated at 3,400 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a design gross-electrical output of 1,200 MW. The expected net electrical output for each unit would be 1,117 MW. The cooling system for Units 1 and 2 would include three constructed impoundments: Make-Up Pond A and Make-Up Pond B, which presently exist on the Lee Nuclear Station site, and Make-Up Pond C, which would be built on the London Creek watershed to the northwest of the Lee Nuclear Station site. Makeup water from the Broad River would be provided to the plant via Make-Up Pond A. During periods of low flow when withdrawals from the Broad River are limited, makeup water would be provided from Make-Up Ponds B and C to Make-Up Pond A. A portion of the makeup water would be returned to the Broad River via a discharge structure on the upstream side of Ninety-Nine Islands Dam. The remaining portion of the water would be released to the atmosphere via evaporative cooling through mechanical draft cooling towers. Two new transmission-line corridors, each containing one 230-kilovolt (kV) and one 525-kV transmission line, are also proposed. Liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste management systems would be used to collect and treat the radioactive materials produced as byproducts of operating Lee Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS considers energy source alternatives, alternative sites, system design alternatives, and on-site alternatives to reduce impacts on natural and cultural resources. The preliminary recommendation of NRC staff is that the operating licenses be issued as requested. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed units would provide for additional baseload electrical generating capacity in 2021 and 2023 within the service territories of Duke. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would affect surface water and underlying aquifers, including the Broad River and Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir, London Creek and its tributaries. Development of Make-Up Pond C would permanently inundate 620 acres, displace 260 acres of farmland, and require the purchase and demolition of 86 privately-owned residences. Proposed transmission lines would convert 690 acres of forest land to cleared corridors and displace 163 acres of farmland and 16.8 acres of wetlands and streams. A total of 1,115 acres of various habitat types would incur permanent and temporary loss and alteration. Construction and preconstruction traffic impacts would be noticeable, particularly on McKowns Mountain Road. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). JF - EPA number: 110423, Volume 1--731 pages, Volume 2--609 pages, December 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-2111 KW - Cooling Systems KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Pressurized Water Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Regulations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Broad River KW - South Carolina KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/963636649?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WILLIAM+STATES+LEE+III+NUCLEAR+STATION+UNITS+1+AND+2%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+CHEROKEE+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=WILLIAM+STATES+LEE+III+NUCLEAR+STATION+UNITS+1+AND+2%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+CHEROKEE+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WILLIAM STATES LEE III NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1 AND 2, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, CHEROKEE COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 1 of 5] T2 - WILLIAM STATES LEE III NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1 AND 2, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, CHEROKEE COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 963635607; 15179-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined licenses for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactors at the William States Lee III Nuclear Station (Lee Nuclear Station) site in Cherokee County, South Carolina is proposed. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke) submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on December 12, 2007 for Lee Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2. This application was revised and a supplement describing Dukes plans to construct and operate a supplemental cooling water reservoir was submitted on September 24, 2009. The 1,900-acre site proposed for the two new nuclear units is the unfinished Cherokee Nuclear Station, located 40 miles southwest of Charlotte, 25 miles northeast of Spartanburg, and eight miles southeast of Gaffney. Duke would reactivate the 6.8-mile-long railroad spur from near Gaffney to the site for construction purposes. Lee Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 would have a design site grade of 590 feet above mean sea level. The containment vessel, shield building, and auxiliary building would make up the nuclear island, which is one of the principal structures of the standard Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) pressurized water reactor design. Each AP1000 reactor would be connected to two steam generators to drive turbines, thereby creating electricity. The AP1000 design is rated at 3,400 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a design gross-electrical output of 1,200 MW. The expected net electrical output for each unit would be 1,117 MW. The cooling system for Units 1 and 2 would include three constructed impoundments: Make-Up Pond A and Make-Up Pond B, which presently exist on the Lee Nuclear Station site, and Make-Up Pond C, which would be built on the London Creek watershed to the northwest of the Lee Nuclear Station site. Makeup water from the Broad River would be provided to the plant via Make-Up Pond A. During periods of low flow when withdrawals from the Broad River are limited, makeup water would be provided from Make-Up Ponds B and C to Make-Up Pond A. A portion of the makeup water would be returned to the Broad River via a discharge structure on the upstream side of Ninety-Nine Islands Dam. The remaining portion of the water would be released to the atmosphere via evaporative cooling through mechanical draft cooling towers. Two new transmission-line corridors, each containing one 230-kilovolt (kV) and one 525-kV transmission line, are also proposed. Liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste management systems would be used to collect and treat the radioactive materials produced as byproducts of operating Lee Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS considers energy source alternatives, alternative sites, system design alternatives, and on-site alternatives to reduce impacts on natural and cultural resources. The preliminary recommendation of NRC staff is that the operating licenses be issued as requested. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed units would provide for additional baseload electrical generating capacity in 2021 and 2023 within the service territories of Duke. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would affect surface water and underlying aquifers, including the Broad River and Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir, London Creek and its tributaries. Development of Make-Up Pond C would permanently inundate 620 acres, displace 260 acres of farmland, and require the purchase and demolition of 86 privately-owned residences. Proposed transmission lines would convert 690 acres of forest land to cleared corridors and displace 163 acres of farmland and 16.8 acres of wetlands and streams. A total of 1,115 acres of various habitat types would incur permanent and temporary loss and alteration. Construction and preconstruction traffic impacts would be noticeable, particularly on McKowns Mountain Road. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). JF - EPA number: 110423, Volume 1--731 pages, Volume 2--609 pages, December 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-2111 KW - Cooling Systems KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Pressurized Water Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Regulations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Broad River KW - South Carolina KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/963635607?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WILLIAM+STATES+LEE+III+NUCLEAR+STATION+UNITS+1+AND+2%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+CHEROKEE+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=WILLIAM+STATES+LEE+III+NUCLEAR+STATION+UNITS+1+AND+2%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+CHEROKEE+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH HILLSIDE ROAD EXTENSION, MANSFIELD, CONNECTICUT. AN - 16387972; 15181 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of North Hillside Road on the Storrs campus of the University of Connecticut from its current terminus northward to US 44 in the town of Mansfield, Connecticut is proposed. The existing two-lane North Hillside Road begins at North Eagleville Road and extends 4,000 feet to the north terminating just north of the Charter Apartments. The proposed 3,400-foot extension would pass through a tract of land adjacent to the Storrs core academic campus, known as the North Campus, to US 44 between two parcels occupied by New Alliance Bank and Bank of America across from Professional Park Drive, creating a four-way intersection, approximately 2,000 feet west of Route 195 (Storrs Road). US 44 would be widened at the intersection with the proposed extension to add exclusive east bound and westbound left-turn lanes, an eastbound right-turn lane and a new traffic signal. The North Hillside Road approach to this intersection would be treated as a primary university entrance. The roadway extension has been contemplated since the 1970s, when the North Campus core area was considered for the development of a research and technology park. In 2005, approximately $6.0 million was appropriated by the federal government for the construction of North Hillside Road. Five alignment alternatives and a No Action Alternative were considered in the draft EIS of December 2008. This final EIS identifies the roadway alignment Option A and the North Campus development Alternative 2C as the preferred alternatives. Two wetland crossings have been re-designed to essentially eliminate wetland impacts and maintain habitat connectivity for aquatic resources and other wildlife. Additionally, the North Campus concept development plan (Alternative 2C) has been modified to eliminate the previously proposed development on Parcel A and preserve an additional 76 acres of land on the North Campus through a conservation easement. Alternative 2C would provide 1.2 million square feet of total building area and 4,475 parking spaces, while limiting total wetland disturbance. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new roadway would provide an additional entrance to the university, relieve traffic congestion on surrounding roads, and facilitate the development of the North Campus area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way would displace 2.3 acres of farmland, while the development of the North Campus parcels would impact 29.6 acres of farmland soils. Forested areas, encompassing 0.3 acre of wetlands, would be filled. These impacts would be mitigated through acre-for-acre replacement and conservation. Additional traffic expected in the North Campus area would reduce the level of service at several local intersections. Noise levels along the new facility would increase by 2.2 decibels, but remain below federal limits. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0086D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110425, 257 pages and maps, December 23, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CT-EIS-08-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Easements KW - Farmlands KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Universities KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Connecticut KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16387972?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+HILLSIDE+ROAD+EXTENSION%2C+MANSFIELD%2C+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NORTH+HILLSIDE+ROAD+EXTENSION%2C+MANSFIELD%2C+CONNECTICUT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Glastonbury, Connecticut; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-24 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEAR CREEK GENERAL REEVALUATION STUDY, BRAZORIA, FORT BEND, GALVESTON, AND HARRIS COUNTIES, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 1982). AN - 16377487; 15176 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management and ecosystem restoration measures within the Clear Creek watershed in Brazoria, Fort Bend, Galveston, and Harris counties, Texas are proposed. Clear Creek, a wooded stream, drains an area south of and partially within the city of Houston. The watershed is composed of relatively flat coastal plain and includes sixteen cities and covers 260 square miles of land. Clear Lake is the flooded lower extremity of the Clear Creek entrenched channel, now forming an estuarine lake tributary to Galveston Bay. Many communities and subdivisions along the creek are subject to flooding and recent floods have caused extensive property damage. The previously authorized Clear Creek Federal Flood Control Project (presented in the 1982 final EIS) consisted of an earthen channel that would widen and straighten Clear Creek. Also included in the project, and completed, was the construction of a second outlet from Clear Lake to Galveston Bay that would allow for the additional flows from Clear Creek once the channel modifications were made. Construction of the authorized channel on the upstream portion of the creek was delayed after issues were raised regarding project impacts, project design, and proposed sites for placement of construction material. A general reevaluation study was initiated in 1999. This draft supplemental EIS evaluates the General Reevaluation Plan (GRP) Alternative and a No Action Alternative. Under the GRP Alternative, flood risk management would include conveyance and in-line detention measures on or adjacent to the main stem of Clear Creek from State Highway 288 to Bennie Kate Road, Bennie Kate Road to Dixie Farm Road, and on three tributaries: Mud Gully, Turkey Creek, and Marys Creek. Mitigation features would include avoidance, minimization, and compensation for project impacts through rehabilitation of a 65-foot-wide riparian corridor of floodplain forest habitat along the low-flow channel. Specifically, these features include preserving and rehabilitating 122 acres and reestablishing 33 acres of floodplain forest. Almost all project features would require excavation of materials to create a high flow flood bench. Approximately 375.8 acres of placement areas would be identified outside of the 500-year floodplain in areas suitable for placement of excavated material associated with the project. The GRP Alternative has been identified as the tentatively recommended plan and is the preferred alternative. Total project costs are estimated at $191.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood damages within the Clear Creek watershed while preserving natural features for aesthetics, recreation, and rehabilitation of fish and wildlife resources. The tentatively recommended plan would effectively reduce flood risks for 2,453 (65 percent) of the structures in the 100-year floodplain of the study area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of flood risk management measures under the tentatively recommended plan would directly impact 278 acres of floodplain forest within the riparian corridor of Clear Creek. Mitigation would be accomplished by modifying the low-flow channel to restore natural hydrology and by reestablishing an additional 31 acres of floodplain forest. Construction of the Turkey Creek conveyance would reduce habitat diversity. To accommodate conveyance features, 22 pipelines will require relocation; however, directional drilling will likely be utilized to deepen the pipelines in their existing location. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-483). JF - EPA number: 110420, Draft EIS--372 pages, Appendices--865 pages, General Reevaluation Report--170 pages, December 16, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrology KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Watersheds KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Flood Control Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16377487?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEAR+CREEK+GENERAL+REEVALUATION+STUDY%2C+BRAZORIA%2C+FORT+BEND%2C+GALVESTON%2C+AND+HARRIS+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+1982%29.&rft.title=CLEAR+CREEK+GENERAL+REEVALUATION+STUDY%2C+BRAZORIA%2C+FORT+BEND%2C+GALVESTON%2C+AND+HARRIS+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+1982%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Galveston, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-20 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Snowpack and runoff generation using AMSR-E passive microwave observations in the Upper Helmand Watershed, Afghanistan AN - 911158351; 16077274 AB - Passive microwave estimates of snow water equivalent (SWE) were examined to determine their usefulness for evaluating water resources in the remote Upper Helmand Watershed, central Afghanistan. SWE estimates from the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer-Earth Observing System (AMSR-E) and the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) passive microwave data were analyzed for six winter seasons, 2004-2009. A second, independent estimate of SWE was calculated for these same time periods using a hydrologic model of the watershed with a temperature index snow model driven using the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) gridded estimates of precipitation. The results demonstrate that passive microwave SWE values from SSM/I and AMSR-E are comparable. The AMSR-E sensor had improved performance in the early winter and late spring, which suggests that AMSR-E is better at detecting shallow snowpacks than SSM/I. The timing and magnitude of SWE values from the snow model and the passive microwave observations were sometimes similar with a correlation of 0.53 and accuracy between 55 and 62%. However, the modeled SWE was much lower than the AMSR-E SWE during two winter seasons in which TRMM data estimated lower than normal precipitation. Modeled runoff and reservoir storage predictions improved significantly when peak AMSR-E SWE values were used to update the snow model state during these periods. Rapid decreases in passive microwave SWE during precipitation events were also well aligned with flood flows that increased base flows by 170 and 940%. This finding supports previous northern latitude studies which indicate that the passive microwave signal's lack of scattering can be used to detect snow melt. The current study's extension to rain on snow events suggests an opportunity for added value for flood forecasting. JF - Remote Sensing of Environment AU - Vuyovich, Carrie AU - Jacobs, Jennifer M AD - Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, 72 Lyme Road, Hanover, NH 03755, United States, Carrie.M.Vuyovich@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2011/12/15/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Dec 15 SP - 3313 EP - 3321 PB - Elsevier B.V., Box 882 New York NY 10159 United States VL - 115 IS - 12 SN - 0034-4257, 0034-4257 KW - Environment Abstracts; Ecology Abstracts; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts KW - Snow KW - AMSR-E KW - Runoff KW - Afghanistan KW - Microwave remote sensing KW - Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) KW - Sensors KW - Remote sensing of environment KW - Rainfall KW - Remote sensing KW - Water resources KW - Watersheds KW - Models KW - Flood forecasting KW - Floods KW - Seasonal variability KW - Reservoirs KW - Temperature effects KW - Rain on snow KW - Data processing KW - Precipitation KW - Snow cover KW - winter KW - Scanning KW - flood forecasting KW - Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) KW - Rainfall-runoff modeling KW - Rain KW - D 04030:Models, Methods, Remote Sensing KW - M2 556.16:Runoff (556.16) KW - ENA 16:Renewable Resources-Water UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/911158351?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aecology&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Remote+Sensing+of+Environment&rft.atitle=Snowpack+and+runoff+generation+using+AMSR-E+passive+microwave+observations+in+the+Upper+Helmand+Watershed%2C+Afghanistan&rft.au=Vuyovich%2C+Carrie%3BJacobs%2C+Jennifer+M&rft.aulast=Vuyovich&rft.aufirst=Carrie&rft.date=2011-12-15&rft.volume=115&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=3313&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Remote+Sensing+of+Environment&rft.issn=00344257&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.rse.2011.07.014 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-19 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Temperature effects; Data processing; Snow; Rainfall; Remote sensing; Water resources; Precipitation; Watersheds; Models; Scanning; Floods; Rain; Runoff; Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I); Flood forecasting; Rain on snow; Remote sensing of environment; Rainfall-runoff modeling; Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM); Seasonal variability; Snow cover; winter; Sensors; flood forecasting; Reservoirs; Afghanistan DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.07.014 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EVERGLADES RESTORATION TRANSITION PLAN, BROWARD AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTIES, FLORIDA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - EVERGLADES RESTORATION TRANSITION PLAN, BROWARD AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 928982303; 15172-6_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The Everglades Restoration Transition Plan (ERTP) to modify water management operating criteria for features of the Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) Project is proposed to provide further hydrological improvements consistent with protection of multiple listed species. The C&SF Project was designed and constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers for the local sponsor, the South Florida Water Management District. The Corps operates and maintains project works on the St. Lucie Canal; Caloosahatchee River; Herbert Hoover Dike and Lake Okeechobee major spillways; and the main outlets for Water Conservation Areas Nos. 1, 2, and 3. The authorized purposes of the C&SF Project include flood control; water supply for agricultural irrigation, municipalities and industry, and Everglades National Park (ENP); regional groundwater control and prevention of saltwater intrusion; enhancement of fish and wildlife; and recreation. The ERTP would supersede the 2006 Interim Operational Plan for Protection of the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow (IOP) and maximize operational flexibilities in order to improve conditions for the snail kite, wood stork and other wading birds and their habitats in south Florida, while maintaining nesting season requirements for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow (CSSS). The ERTP would affect portions of several counties as well as portions of ENP, Big Cypress National Preserve, and adjacent areas. The proposed structural and operational changes would apply to the constructed features of the Modified Water Deliveries (MWD) to ENP Project and the Canal-111 South Dade Project until a combined operational plan is implemented. ERTP objectives include improving conditions in Water Conservation Area 3A (WCA-3A) which supports extensive landscapes, including ridge and slough patterns and tree islands, and provides critical habitat. It is the homeland of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians and supports their traditional and contemporary lifestyles. Over the past decade, however, there have been drastic declines in snail kite numbers and nesting success in WCA-3A, as well as continued slow declines in tree island size and number. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under Alternative 9E1, which is the final recommended plan, a revised WCA-3A interim regulation schedule would allow for the ability to make maximum releases earlier while providing a greater amount of transition time to and from those maximum releases. Existing water management structures such as S-12C, S-333, and S-346 would be used to assist in moving water out of WCA-3A while, under certain conditions, providing additional water to Northeast Shark River Slough. In addition, a newly constructed structure (S-332DX1) would be utilized to assist in maintaining desirable water levels in ENP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: More flexible operating criteria would provide a means for reducing high water periods and prolonged flooding within WCA-3A, thus restoring vegetation and directly benefiting snail kite and their primary food source, the apple snail. Protective levels for the CSSS would be maintained and periodic scientists calls would take advantage of the best science currently available to enable real-time water management decisions. Implementation of the recommended plan would be an incremental component in the restoration of habitat and a step toward multi-species management that is expected to contribute to a net beneficial impact on the regional ecosystem. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the ERTP would not avoid impacts to listed species. Significant reductions in the water level within some WCA-3A zones could impact water quality, vegetation, and wading birds. Less water would be delivered to the South Dade Conveyance System, but agricultural impacts would be negligible. Further fluctuations created through controlled staging of the water could adversely impact cultural resources. Airboat access to some areas of WCA-3A could be restricted during dry periods. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110416, Volume1--1,234 pages, Volume 2--928 pages, Water Control Plan--56 pages, December 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Preserves KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Big Cypress National Preserve KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928982303?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+TRANSITION+PLAN%2C+BROWARD+AND+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+TRANSITION+PLAN%2C+BROWARD+AND+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EVERGLADES RESTORATION TRANSITION PLAN, BROWARD AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTIES, FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - EVERGLADES RESTORATION TRANSITION PLAN, BROWARD AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 928982125; 15172-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The Everglades Restoration Transition Plan (ERTP) to modify water management operating criteria for features of the Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) Project is proposed to provide further hydrological improvements consistent with protection of multiple listed species. The C&SF Project was designed and constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers for the local sponsor, the South Florida Water Management District. The Corps operates and maintains project works on the St. Lucie Canal; Caloosahatchee River; Herbert Hoover Dike and Lake Okeechobee major spillways; and the main outlets for Water Conservation Areas Nos. 1, 2, and 3. The authorized purposes of the C&SF Project include flood control; water supply for agricultural irrigation, municipalities and industry, and Everglades National Park (ENP); regional groundwater control and prevention of saltwater intrusion; enhancement of fish and wildlife; and recreation. The ERTP would supersede the 2006 Interim Operational Plan for Protection of the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow (IOP) and maximize operational flexibilities in order to improve conditions for the snail kite, wood stork and other wading birds and their habitats in south Florida, while maintaining nesting season requirements for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow (CSSS). The ERTP would affect portions of several counties as well as portions of ENP, Big Cypress National Preserve, and adjacent areas. The proposed structural and operational changes would apply to the constructed features of the Modified Water Deliveries (MWD) to ENP Project and the Canal-111 South Dade Project until a combined operational plan is implemented. ERTP objectives include improving conditions in Water Conservation Area 3A (WCA-3A) which supports extensive landscapes, including ridge and slough patterns and tree islands, and provides critical habitat. It is the homeland of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians and supports their traditional and contemporary lifestyles. Over the past decade, however, there have been drastic declines in snail kite numbers and nesting success in WCA-3A, as well as continued slow declines in tree island size and number. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under Alternative 9E1, which is the final recommended plan, a revised WCA-3A interim regulation schedule would allow for the ability to make maximum releases earlier while providing a greater amount of transition time to and from those maximum releases. Existing water management structures such as S-12C, S-333, and S-346 would be used to assist in moving water out of WCA-3A while, under certain conditions, providing additional water to Northeast Shark River Slough. In addition, a newly constructed structure (S-332DX1) would be utilized to assist in maintaining desirable water levels in ENP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: More flexible operating criteria would provide a means for reducing high water periods and prolonged flooding within WCA-3A, thus restoring vegetation and directly benefiting snail kite and their primary food source, the apple snail. Protective levels for the CSSS would be maintained and periodic scientists calls would take advantage of the best science currently available to enable real-time water management decisions. Implementation of the recommended plan would be an incremental component in the restoration of habitat and a step toward multi-species management that is expected to contribute to a net beneficial impact on the regional ecosystem. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the ERTP would not avoid impacts to listed species. Significant reductions in the water level within some WCA-3A zones could impact water quality, vegetation, and wading birds. Less water would be delivered to the South Dade Conveyance System, but agricultural impacts would be negligible. Further fluctuations created through controlled staging of the water could adversely impact cultural resources. Airboat access to some areas of WCA-3A could be restricted during dry periods. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110416, Volume1--1,234 pages, Volume 2--928 pages, Water Control Plan--56 pages, December 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Preserves KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Big Cypress National Preserve KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928982125?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+TRANSITION+PLAN%2C+BROWARD+AND+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+TRANSITION+PLAN%2C+BROWARD+AND+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 6 of 11] T2 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 928981429; 15169-3_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new water storage reservoirs, to be incorporated into the existing Windy Gap Project (WGP), in Grand County, Colorado is proposed. The WGP is located near the town of Granby on Colorado's West Slope and consists of a diversion dam on the Colorado River, a 445-acre-foot reservoir, a pumping plant, and a six-mile pipeline to Granby Reservoir. The project is neither federally owned nor operated, but WGP water is stored and conveyed through the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT) facilities prior to delivery to WGP allottees. Reclamation allows the storage and transport of WGP water in the CBT Project through an excess capacity contract with the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The WGP was originally planned to divert an estimated longterm annual average of 56,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River. However, the WGP has been unable to provide the expected yield due to its junior water right and periodic lack of excess capacity in the CBT Project. In addition, the WGP does not currently provide annual carry-over water storage for the Middle Park Water Conservancy District on the West Slope. Under the desired condition, 30,000 acre-feet of additional firm annual yield would be added to reservoir storage capacity, along with ancillary facilities capable of supporting delivery of that water. The proposed Windy Gap Firming Project is a collaborative effort of 14 water providers and users facilitated by the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, would involve the creation of an impoundment, known as the Chimney Hollow Reservoir, with a capacity of 90,000 acre-feet. Water would be conveyed to the reservoir via a new pipeline connection to existing East Slope C-BT facilities. New connections between the reservoir and Carter Lake would allow delivery of water to project participants using existing infrastructure. Prepositioning would involve the use of available Adams Tunnel capacity to deliver C-BT water to Chimney Hollow Reservoir to occupy storage space that is not occupied by WGP water. The delivery of C-BT water from Granby Reservoir to Chimney Hollow Reservoir would create space for WGP water in Granby Reservoir. When WGP water is diverted into Granby Reservoir, the C-BT water in Chimney Hollow Reservoir would be exchanged for a like amount of WGP water in Granby Reservoir. Total allowable C-BT storage would not change and the existing C-BT diversions would not be expanded. The other action alternatives would involve creation of one of three other candidate reservoirs. Under Alternative 3, storage need would be met using a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Jasper East Reservoir. Alternative 4 would employ a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Rockwell/Mueller Creek Reservoir. Alternative 5 would use a combination of 60,000 acre-feet in Dry Creek Reservoir and 30,000 acre-feet in Rockwell Reservoir. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The firming project would increase yield over that of the existing WGP and provide more reliable water deliveries to Front Range and West Slope communities and industrial users. The project would benefit 10 cities, two water districts and an electric power provider. Beneficial streamflow would increase from the discharge of Windy Gap return flows to the Big Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, Big Dry Creek, and Coal Creek. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the Chimney Hollow Reservoir would inundate 2.9 acres of wetlands and 810 acres of elk and mule deer winter range and black bear foraging habitat. Under the preferred alternative, average annual Colorado River flows below Granby Reservoir, Windy Gap Reservoir, and the confluence with the Blue River would decline by 15 percent, 14 percent, and three percent, respectively. Water quality and water temperature changes would affect fish habitat. The project would also require acquisition or easements on private land and the relocation of utilities. In the long-term, Colorado River depletions would affect recreational uses of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0486D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110413, Final EIS (Volume 1)--811 pages and maps, Responses to Comments (Volume II)--661 pages, December 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 11-29 KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928981429?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 3 of 11] T2 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 928981426; 15169-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new water storage reservoirs, to be incorporated into the existing Windy Gap Project (WGP), in Grand County, Colorado is proposed. The WGP is located near the town of Granby on Colorado's West Slope and consists of a diversion dam on the Colorado River, a 445-acre-foot reservoir, a pumping plant, and a six-mile pipeline to Granby Reservoir. The project is neither federally owned nor operated, but WGP water is stored and conveyed through the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT) facilities prior to delivery to WGP allottees. Reclamation allows the storage and transport of WGP water in the CBT Project through an excess capacity contract with the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The WGP was originally planned to divert an estimated longterm annual average of 56,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River. However, the WGP has been unable to provide the expected yield due to its junior water right and periodic lack of excess capacity in the CBT Project. In addition, the WGP does not currently provide annual carry-over water storage for the Middle Park Water Conservancy District on the West Slope. Under the desired condition, 30,000 acre-feet of additional firm annual yield would be added to reservoir storage capacity, along with ancillary facilities capable of supporting delivery of that water. The proposed Windy Gap Firming Project is a collaborative effort of 14 water providers and users facilitated by the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, would involve the creation of an impoundment, known as the Chimney Hollow Reservoir, with a capacity of 90,000 acre-feet. Water would be conveyed to the reservoir via a new pipeline connection to existing East Slope C-BT facilities. New connections between the reservoir and Carter Lake would allow delivery of water to project participants using existing infrastructure. Prepositioning would involve the use of available Adams Tunnel capacity to deliver C-BT water to Chimney Hollow Reservoir to occupy storage space that is not occupied by WGP water. The delivery of C-BT water from Granby Reservoir to Chimney Hollow Reservoir would create space for WGP water in Granby Reservoir. When WGP water is diverted into Granby Reservoir, the C-BT water in Chimney Hollow Reservoir would be exchanged for a like amount of WGP water in Granby Reservoir. Total allowable C-BT storage would not change and the existing C-BT diversions would not be expanded. The other action alternatives would involve creation of one of three other candidate reservoirs. Under Alternative 3, storage need would be met using a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Jasper East Reservoir. Alternative 4 would employ a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Rockwell/Mueller Creek Reservoir. Alternative 5 would use a combination of 60,000 acre-feet in Dry Creek Reservoir and 30,000 acre-feet in Rockwell Reservoir. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The firming project would increase yield over that of the existing WGP and provide more reliable water deliveries to Front Range and West Slope communities and industrial users. The project would benefit 10 cities, two water districts and an electric power provider. Beneficial streamflow would increase from the discharge of Windy Gap return flows to the Big Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, Big Dry Creek, and Coal Creek. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the Chimney Hollow Reservoir would inundate 2.9 acres of wetlands and 810 acres of elk and mule deer winter range and black bear foraging habitat. Under the preferred alternative, average annual Colorado River flows below Granby Reservoir, Windy Gap Reservoir, and the confluence with the Blue River would decline by 15 percent, 14 percent, and three percent, respectively. Water quality and water temperature changes would affect fish habitat. The project would also require acquisition or easements on private land and the relocation of utilities. In the long-term, Colorado River depletions would affect recreational uses of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0486D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110413, Final EIS (Volume 1)--811 pages and maps, Responses to Comments (Volume II)--661 pages, December 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 11-29 KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928981426?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 2 of 11] T2 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 928981424; 15169-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new water storage reservoirs, to be incorporated into the existing Windy Gap Project (WGP), in Grand County, Colorado is proposed. The WGP is located near the town of Granby on Colorado's West Slope and consists of a diversion dam on the Colorado River, a 445-acre-foot reservoir, a pumping plant, and a six-mile pipeline to Granby Reservoir. The project is neither federally owned nor operated, but WGP water is stored and conveyed through the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT) facilities prior to delivery to WGP allottees. Reclamation allows the storage and transport of WGP water in the CBT Project through an excess capacity contract with the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The WGP was originally planned to divert an estimated longterm annual average of 56,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River. However, the WGP has been unable to provide the expected yield due to its junior water right and periodic lack of excess capacity in the CBT Project. In addition, the WGP does not currently provide annual carry-over water storage for the Middle Park Water Conservancy District on the West Slope. Under the desired condition, 30,000 acre-feet of additional firm annual yield would be added to reservoir storage capacity, along with ancillary facilities capable of supporting delivery of that water. The proposed Windy Gap Firming Project is a collaborative effort of 14 water providers and users facilitated by the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, would involve the creation of an impoundment, known as the Chimney Hollow Reservoir, with a capacity of 90,000 acre-feet. Water would be conveyed to the reservoir via a new pipeline connection to existing East Slope C-BT facilities. New connections between the reservoir and Carter Lake would allow delivery of water to project participants using existing infrastructure. Prepositioning would involve the use of available Adams Tunnel capacity to deliver C-BT water to Chimney Hollow Reservoir to occupy storage space that is not occupied by WGP water. The delivery of C-BT water from Granby Reservoir to Chimney Hollow Reservoir would create space for WGP water in Granby Reservoir. When WGP water is diverted into Granby Reservoir, the C-BT water in Chimney Hollow Reservoir would be exchanged for a like amount of WGP water in Granby Reservoir. Total allowable C-BT storage would not change and the existing C-BT diversions would not be expanded. The other action alternatives would involve creation of one of three other candidate reservoirs. Under Alternative 3, storage need would be met using a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Jasper East Reservoir. Alternative 4 would employ a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Rockwell/Mueller Creek Reservoir. Alternative 5 would use a combination of 60,000 acre-feet in Dry Creek Reservoir and 30,000 acre-feet in Rockwell Reservoir. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The firming project would increase yield over that of the existing WGP and provide more reliable water deliveries to Front Range and West Slope communities and industrial users. The project would benefit 10 cities, two water districts and an electric power provider. Beneficial streamflow would increase from the discharge of Windy Gap return flows to the Big Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, Big Dry Creek, and Coal Creek. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the Chimney Hollow Reservoir would inundate 2.9 acres of wetlands and 810 acres of elk and mule deer winter range and black bear foraging habitat. Under the preferred alternative, average annual Colorado River flows below Granby Reservoir, Windy Gap Reservoir, and the confluence with the Blue River would decline by 15 percent, 14 percent, and three percent, respectively. Water quality and water temperature changes would affect fish habitat. The project would also require acquisition or easements on private land and the relocation of utilities. In the long-term, Colorado River depletions would affect recreational uses of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0486D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110413, Final EIS (Volume 1)--811 pages and maps, Responses to Comments (Volume II)--661 pages, December 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 11-29 KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928981424?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 5 of 11] T2 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 928981423; 15169-3_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new water storage reservoirs, to be incorporated into the existing Windy Gap Project (WGP), in Grand County, Colorado is proposed. The WGP is located near the town of Granby on Colorado's West Slope and consists of a diversion dam on the Colorado River, a 445-acre-foot reservoir, a pumping plant, and a six-mile pipeline to Granby Reservoir. The project is neither federally owned nor operated, but WGP water is stored and conveyed through the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT) facilities prior to delivery to WGP allottees. Reclamation allows the storage and transport of WGP water in the CBT Project through an excess capacity contract with the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The WGP was originally planned to divert an estimated longterm annual average of 56,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River. However, the WGP has been unable to provide the expected yield due to its junior water right and periodic lack of excess capacity in the CBT Project. In addition, the WGP does not currently provide annual carry-over water storage for the Middle Park Water Conservancy District on the West Slope. Under the desired condition, 30,000 acre-feet of additional firm annual yield would be added to reservoir storage capacity, along with ancillary facilities capable of supporting delivery of that water. The proposed Windy Gap Firming Project is a collaborative effort of 14 water providers and users facilitated by the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, would involve the creation of an impoundment, known as the Chimney Hollow Reservoir, with a capacity of 90,000 acre-feet. Water would be conveyed to the reservoir via a new pipeline connection to existing East Slope C-BT facilities. New connections between the reservoir and Carter Lake would allow delivery of water to project participants using existing infrastructure. Prepositioning would involve the use of available Adams Tunnel capacity to deliver C-BT water to Chimney Hollow Reservoir to occupy storage space that is not occupied by WGP water. The delivery of C-BT water from Granby Reservoir to Chimney Hollow Reservoir would create space for WGP water in Granby Reservoir. When WGP water is diverted into Granby Reservoir, the C-BT water in Chimney Hollow Reservoir would be exchanged for a like amount of WGP water in Granby Reservoir. Total allowable C-BT storage would not change and the existing C-BT diversions would not be expanded. The other action alternatives would involve creation of one of three other candidate reservoirs. Under Alternative 3, storage need would be met using a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Jasper East Reservoir. Alternative 4 would employ a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Rockwell/Mueller Creek Reservoir. Alternative 5 would use a combination of 60,000 acre-feet in Dry Creek Reservoir and 30,000 acre-feet in Rockwell Reservoir. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The firming project would increase yield over that of the existing WGP and provide more reliable water deliveries to Front Range and West Slope communities and industrial users. The project would benefit 10 cities, two water districts and an electric power provider. Beneficial streamflow would increase from the discharge of Windy Gap return flows to the Big Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, Big Dry Creek, and Coal Creek. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the Chimney Hollow Reservoir would inundate 2.9 acres of wetlands and 810 acres of elk and mule deer winter range and black bear foraging habitat. Under the preferred alternative, average annual Colorado River flows below Granby Reservoir, Windy Gap Reservoir, and the confluence with the Blue River would decline by 15 percent, 14 percent, and three percent, respectively. Water quality and water temperature changes would affect fish habitat. The project would also require acquisition or easements on private land and the relocation of utilities. In the long-term, Colorado River depletions would affect recreational uses of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0486D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110413, Final EIS (Volume 1)--811 pages and maps, Responses to Comments (Volume II)--661 pages, December 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 11-29 KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928981423?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 4 of 11] T2 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 928981416; 15169-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new water storage reservoirs, to be incorporated into the existing Windy Gap Project (WGP), in Grand County, Colorado is proposed. The WGP is located near the town of Granby on Colorado's West Slope and consists of a diversion dam on the Colorado River, a 445-acre-foot reservoir, a pumping plant, and a six-mile pipeline to Granby Reservoir. The project is neither federally owned nor operated, but WGP water is stored and conveyed through the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT) facilities prior to delivery to WGP allottees. Reclamation allows the storage and transport of WGP water in the CBT Project through an excess capacity contract with the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The WGP was originally planned to divert an estimated longterm annual average of 56,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River. However, the WGP has been unable to provide the expected yield due to its junior water right and periodic lack of excess capacity in the CBT Project. In addition, the WGP does not currently provide annual carry-over water storage for the Middle Park Water Conservancy District on the West Slope. Under the desired condition, 30,000 acre-feet of additional firm annual yield would be added to reservoir storage capacity, along with ancillary facilities capable of supporting delivery of that water. The proposed Windy Gap Firming Project is a collaborative effort of 14 water providers and users facilitated by the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, would involve the creation of an impoundment, known as the Chimney Hollow Reservoir, with a capacity of 90,000 acre-feet. Water would be conveyed to the reservoir via a new pipeline connection to existing East Slope C-BT facilities. New connections between the reservoir and Carter Lake would allow delivery of water to project participants using existing infrastructure. Prepositioning would involve the use of available Adams Tunnel capacity to deliver C-BT water to Chimney Hollow Reservoir to occupy storage space that is not occupied by WGP water. The delivery of C-BT water from Granby Reservoir to Chimney Hollow Reservoir would create space for WGP water in Granby Reservoir. When WGP water is diverted into Granby Reservoir, the C-BT water in Chimney Hollow Reservoir would be exchanged for a like amount of WGP water in Granby Reservoir. Total allowable C-BT storage would not change and the existing C-BT diversions would not be expanded. The other action alternatives would involve creation of one of three other candidate reservoirs. Under Alternative 3, storage need would be met using a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Jasper East Reservoir. Alternative 4 would employ a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Rockwell/Mueller Creek Reservoir. Alternative 5 would use a combination of 60,000 acre-feet in Dry Creek Reservoir and 30,000 acre-feet in Rockwell Reservoir. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The firming project would increase yield over that of the existing WGP and provide more reliable water deliveries to Front Range and West Slope communities and industrial users. The project would benefit 10 cities, two water districts and an electric power provider. Beneficial streamflow would increase from the discharge of Windy Gap return flows to the Big Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, Big Dry Creek, and Coal Creek. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the Chimney Hollow Reservoir would inundate 2.9 acres of wetlands and 810 acres of elk and mule deer winter range and black bear foraging habitat. Under the preferred alternative, average annual Colorado River flows below Granby Reservoir, Windy Gap Reservoir, and the confluence with the Blue River would decline by 15 percent, 14 percent, and three percent, respectively. Water quality and water temperature changes would affect fish habitat. The project would also require acquisition or easements on private land and the relocation of utilities. In the long-term, Colorado River depletions would affect recreational uses of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0486D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110413, Final EIS (Volume 1)--811 pages and maps, Responses to Comments (Volume II)--661 pages, December 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 11-29 KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928981416?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 8 of 11] T2 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 928981017; 15169-3_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new water storage reservoirs, to be incorporated into the existing Windy Gap Project (WGP), in Grand County, Colorado is proposed. The WGP is located near the town of Granby on Colorado's West Slope and consists of a diversion dam on the Colorado River, a 445-acre-foot reservoir, a pumping plant, and a six-mile pipeline to Granby Reservoir. The project is neither federally owned nor operated, but WGP water is stored and conveyed through the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT) facilities prior to delivery to WGP allottees. Reclamation allows the storage and transport of WGP water in the CBT Project through an excess capacity contract with the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The WGP was originally planned to divert an estimated longterm annual average of 56,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River. However, the WGP has been unable to provide the expected yield due to its junior water right and periodic lack of excess capacity in the CBT Project. In addition, the WGP does not currently provide annual carry-over water storage for the Middle Park Water Conservancy District on the West Slope. Under the desired condition, 30,000 acre-feet of additional firm annual yield would be added to reservoir storage capacity, along with ancillary facilities capable of supporting delivery of that water. The proposed Windy Gap Firming Project is a collaborative effort of 14 water providers and users facilitated by the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, would involve the creation of an impoundment, known as the Chimney Hollow Reservoir, with a capacity of 90,000 acre-feet. Water would be conveyed to the reservoir via a new pipeline connection to existing East Slope C-BT facilities. New connections between the reservoir and Carter Lake would allow delivery of water to project participants using existing infrastructure. Prepositioning would involve the use of available Adams Tunnel capacity to deliver C-BT water to Chimney Hollow Reservoir to occupy storage space that is not occupied by WGP water. The delivery of C-BT water from Granby Reservoir to Chimney Hollow Reservoir would create space for WGP water in Granby Reservoir. When WGP water is diverted into Granby Reservoir, the C-BT water in Chimney Hollow Reservoir would be exchanged for a like amount of WGP water in Granby Reservoir. Total allowable C-BT storage would not change and the existing C-BT diversions would not be expanded. The other action alternatives would involve creation of one of three other candidate reservoirs. Under Alternative 3, storage need would be met using a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Jasper East Reservoir. Alternative 4 would employ a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Rockwell/Mueller Creek Reservoir. Alternative 5 would use a combination of 60,000 acre-feet in Dry Creek Reservoir and 30,000 acre-feet in Rockwell Reservoir. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The firming project would increase yield over that of the existing WGP and provide more reliable water deliveries to Front Range and West Slope communities and industrial users. The project would benefit 10 cities, two water districts and an electric power provider. Beneficial streamflow would increase from the discharge of Windy Gap return flows to the Big Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, Big Dry Creek, and Coal Creek. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the Chimney Hollow Reservoir would inundate 2.9 acres of wetlands and 810 acres of elk and mule deer winter range and black bear foraging habitat. Under the preferred alternative, average annual Colorado River flows below Granby Reservoir, Windy Gap Reservoir, and the confluence with the Blue River would decline by 15 percent, 14 percent, and three percent, respectively. Water quality and water temperature changes would affect fish habitat. The project would also require acquisition or easements on private land and the relocation of utilities. In the long-term, Colorado River depletions would affect recreational uses of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0486D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110413, Final EIS (Volume 1)--811 pages and maps, Responses to Comments (Volume II)--661 pages, December 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 11-29 KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928981017?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 7 of 11] T2 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 928981007; 15169-3_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new water storage reservoirs, to be incorporated into the existing Windy Gap Project (WGP), in Grand County, Colorado is proposed. The WGP is located near the town of Granby on Colorado's West Slope and consists of a diversion dam on the Colorado River, a 445-acre-foot reservoir, a pumping plant, and a six-mile pipeline to Granby Reservoir. The project is neither federally owned nor operated, but WGP water is stored and conveyed through the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT) facilities prior to delivery to WGP allottees. Reclamation allows the storage and transport of WGP water in the CBT Project through an excess capacity contract with the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The WGP was originally planned to divert an estimated longterm annual average of 56,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River. However, the WGP has been unable to provide the expected yield due to its junior water right and periodic lack of excess capacity in the CBT Project. In addition, the WGP does not currently provide annual carry-over water storage for the Middle Park Water Conservancy District on the West Slope. Under the desired condition, 30,000 acre-feet of additional firm annual yield would be added to reservoir storage capacity, along with ancillary facilities capable of supporting delivery of that water. The proposed Windy Gap Firming Project is a collaborative effort of 14 water providers and users facilitated by the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, would involve the creation of an impoundment, known as the Chimney Hollow Reservoir, with a capacity of 90,000 acre-feet. Water would be conveyed to the reservoir via a new pipeline connection to existing East Slope C-BT facilities. New connections between the reservoir and Carter Lake would allow delivery of water to project participants using existing infrastructure. Prepositioning would involve the use of available Adams Tunnel capacity to deliver C-BT water to Chimney Hollow Reservoir to occupy storage space that is not occupied by WGP water. The delivery of C-BT water from Granby Reservoir to Chimney Hollow Reservoir would create space for WGP water in Granby Reservoir. When WGP water is diverted into Granby Reservoir, the C-BT water in Chimney Hollow Reservoir would be exchanged for a like amount of WGP water in Granby Reservoir. Total allowable C-BT storage would not change and the existing C-BT diversions would not be expanded. The other action alternatives would involve creation of one of three other candidate reservoirs. Under Alternative 3, storage need would be met using a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Jasper East Reservoir. Alternative 4 would employ a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Rockwell/Mueller Creek Reservoir. Alternative 5 would use a combination of 60,000 acre-feet in Dry Creek Reservoir and 30,000 acre-feet in Rockwell Reservoir. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The firming project would increase yield over that of the existing WGP and provide more reliable water deliveries to Front Range and West Slope communities and industrial users. The project would benefit 10 cities, two water districts and an electric power provider. Beneficial streamflow would increase from the discharge of Windy Gap return flows to the Big Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, Big Dry Creek, and Coal Creek. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the Chimney Hollow Reservoir would inundate 2.9 acres of wetlands and 810 acres of elk and mule deer winter range and black bear foraging habitat. Under the preferred alternative, average annual Colorado River flows below Granby Reservoir, Windy Gap Reservoir, and the confluence with the Blue River would decline by 15 percent, 14 percent, and three percent, respectively. Water quality and water temperature changes would affect fish habitat. The project would also require acquisition or easements on private land and the relocation of utilities. In the long-term, Colorado River depletions would affect recreational uses of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0486D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110413, Final EIS (Volume 1)--811 pages and maps, Responses to Comments (Volume II)--661 pages, December 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 11-29 KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928981007?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 11 of 11] T2 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 928980801; 15169-3_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new water storage reservoirs, to be incorporated into the existing Windy Gap Project (WGP), in Grand County, Colorado is proposed. The WGP is located near the town of Granby on Colorado's West Slope and consists of a diversion dam on the Colorado River, a 445-acre-foot reservoir, a pumping plant, and a six-mile pipeline to Granby Reservoir. The project is neither federally owned nor operated, but WGP water is stored and conveyed through the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT) facilities prior to delivery to WGP allottees. Reclamation allows the storage and transport of WGP water in the CBT Project through an excess capacity contract with the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The WGP was originally planned to divert an estimated longterm annual average of 56,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River. However, the WGP has been unable to provide the expected yield due to its junior water right and periodic lack of excess capacity in the CBT Project. In addition, the WGP does not currently provide annual carry-over water storage for the Middle Park Water Conservancy District on the West Slope. Under the desired condition, 30,000 acre-feet of additional firm annual yield would be added to reservoir storage capacity, along with ancillary facilities capable of supporting delivery of that water. The proposed Windy Gap Firming Project is a collaborative effort of 14 water providers and users facilitated by the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, would involve the creation of an impoundment, known as the Chimney Hollow Reservoir, with a capacity of 90,000 acre-feet. Water would be conveyed to the reservoir via a new pipeline connection to existing East Slope C-BT facilities. New connections between the reservoir and Carter Lake would allow delivery of water to project participants using existing infrastructure. Prepositioning would involve the use of available Adams Tunnel capacity to deliver C-BT water to Chimney Hollow Reservoir to occupy storage space that is not occupied by WGP water. The delivery of C-BT water from Granby Reservoir to Chimney Hollow Reservoir would create space for WGP water in Granby Reservoir. When WGP water is diverted into Granby Reservoir, the C-BT water in Chimney Hollow Reservoir would be exchanged for a like amount of WGP water in Granby Reservoir. Total allowable C-BT storage would not change and the existing C-BT diversions would not be expanded. The other action alternatives would involve creation of one of three other candidate reservoirs. Under Alternative 3, storage need would be met using a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Jasper East Reservoir. Alternative 4 would employ a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Rockwell/Mueller Creek Reservoir. Alternative 5 would use a combination of 60,000 acre-feet in Dry Creek Reservoir and 30,000 acre-feet in Rockwell Reservoir. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The firming project would increase yield over that of the existing WGP and provide more reliable water deliveries to Front Range and West Slope communities and industrial users. The project would benefit 10 cities, two water districts and an electric power provider. Beneficial streamflow would increase from the discharge of Windy Gap return flows to the Big Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, Big Dry Creek, and Coal Creek. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the Chimney Hollow Reservoir would inundate 2.9 acres of wetlands and 810 acres of elk and mule deer winter range and black bear foraging habitat. Under the preferred alternative, average annual Colorado River flows below Granby Reservoir, Windy Gap Reservoir, and the confluence with the Blue River would decline by 15 percent, 14 percent, and three percent, respectively. Water quality and water temperature changes would affect fish habitat. The project would also require acquisition or easements on private land and the relocation of utilities. In the long-term, Colorado River depletions would affect recreational uses of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0486D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110413, Final EIS (Volume 1)--811 pages and maps, Responses to Comments (Volume II)--661 pages, December 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 11-29 KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928980801?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 10 of 11] T2 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 928980796; 15169-3_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new water storage reservoirs, to be incorporated into the existing Windy Gap Project (WGP), in Grand County, Colorado is proposed. The WGP is located near the town of Granby on Colorado's West Slope and consists of a diversion dam on the Colorado River, a 445-acre-foot reservoir, a pumping plant, and a six-mile pipeline to Granby Reservoir. The project is neither federally owned nor operated, but WGP water is stored and conveyed through the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT) facilities prior to delivery to WGP allottees. Reclamation allows the storage and transport of WGP water in the CBT Project through an excess capacity contract with the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The WGP was originally planned to divert an estimated longterm annual average of 56,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River. However, the WGP has been unable to provide the expected yield due to its junior water right and periodic lack of excess capacity in the CBT Project. In addition, the WGP does not currently provide annual carry-over water storage for the Middle Park Water Conservancy District on the West Slope. Under the desired condition, 30,000 acre-feet of additional firm annual yield would be added to reservoir storage capacity, along with ancillary facilities capable of supporting delivery of that water. The proposed Windy Gap Firming Project is a collaborative effort of 14 water providers and users facilitated by the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, would involve the creation of an impoundment, known as the Chimney Hollow Reservoir, with a capacity of 90,000 acre-feet. Water would be conveyed to the reservoir via a new pipeline connection to existing East Slope C-BT facilities. New connections between the reservoir and Carter Lake would allow delivery of water to project participants using existing infrastructure. Prepositioning would involve the use of available Adams Tunnel capacity to deliver C-BT water to Chimney Hollow Reservoir to occupy storage space that is not occupied by WGP water. The delivery of C-BT water from Granby Reservoir to Chimney Hollow Reservoir would create space for WGP water in Granby Reservoir. When WGP water is diverted into Granby Reservoir, the C-BT water in Chimney Hollow Reservoir would be exchanged for a like amount of WGP water in Granby Reservoir. Total allowable C-BT storage would not change and the existing C-BT diversions would not be expanded. The other action alternatives would involve creation of one of three other candidate reservoirs. Under Alternative 3, storage need would be met using a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Jasper East Reservoir. Alternative 4 would employ a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Rockwell/Mueller Creek Reservoir. Alternative 5 would use a combination of 60,000 acre-feet in Dry Creek Reservoir and 30,000 acre-feet in Rockwell Reservoir. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The firming project would increase yield over that of the existing WGP and provide more reliable water deliveries to Front Range and West Slope communities and industrial users. The project would benefit 10 cities, two water districts and an electric power provider. Beneficial streamflow would increase from the discharge of Windy Gap return flows to the Big Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, Big Dry Creek, and Coal Creek. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the Chimney Hollow Reservoir would inundate 2.9 acres of wetlands and 810 acres of elk and mule deer winter range and black bear foraging habitat. Under the preferred alternative, average annual Colorado River flows below Granby Reservoir, Windy Gap Reservoir, and the confluence with the Blue River would decline by 15 percent, 14 percent, and three percent, respectively. Water quality and water temperature changes would affect fish habitat. The project would also require acquisition or easements on private land and the relocation of utilities. In the long-term, Colorado River depletions would affect recreational uses of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0486D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110413, Final EIS (Volume 1)--811 pages and maps, Responses to Comments (Volume II)--661 pages, December 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 11-29 KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928980796?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 9 of 11] T2 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 928980791; 15169-3_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new water storage reservoirs, to be incorporated into the existing Windy Gap Project (WGP), in Grand County, Colorado is proposed. The WGP is located near the town of Granby on Colorado's West Slope and consists of a diversion dam on the Colorado River, a 445-acre-foot reservoir, a pumping plant, and a six-mile pipeline to Granby Reservoir. The project is neither federally owned nor operated, but WGP water is stored and conveyed through the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT) facilities prior to delivery to WGP allottees. Reclamation allows the storage and transport of WGP water in the CBT Project through an excess capacity contract with the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The WGP was originally planned to divert an estimated longterm annual average of 56,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River. However, the WGP has been unable to provide the expected yield due to its junior water right and periodic lack of excess capacity in the CBT Project. In addition, the WGP does not currently provide annual carry-over water storage for the Middle Park Water Conservancy District on the West Slope. Under the desired condition, 30,000 acre-feet of additional firm annual yield would be added to reservoir storage capacity, along with ancillary facilities capable of supporting delivery of that water. The proposed Windy Gap Firming Project is a collaborative effort of 14 water providers and users facilitated by the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, would involve the creation of an impoundment, known as the Chimney Hollow Reservoir, with a capacity of 90,000 acre-feet. Water would be conveyed to the reservoir via a new pipeline connection to existing East Slope C-BT facilities. New connections between the reservoir and Carter Lake would allow delivery of water to project participants using existing infrastructure. Prepositioning would involve the use of available Adams Tunnel capacity to deliver C-BT water to Chimney Hollow Reservoir to occupy storage space that is not occupied by WGP water. The delivery of C-BT water from Granby Reservoir to Chimney Hollow Reservoir would create space for WGP water in Granby Reservoir. When WGP water is diverted into Granby Reservoir, the C-BT water in Chimney Hollow Reservoir would be exchanged for a like amount of WGP water in Granby Reservoir. Total allowable C-BT storage would not change and the existing C-BT diversions would not be expanded. The other action alternatives would involve creation of one of three other candidate reservoirs. Under Alternative 3, storage need would be met using a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Jasper East Reservoir. Alternative 4 would employ a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Rockwell/Mueller Creek Reservoir. Alternative 5 would use a combination of 60,000 acre-feet in Dry Creek Reservoir and 30,000 acre-feet in Rockwell Reservoir. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The firming project would increase yield over that of the existing WGP and provide more reliable water deliveries to Front Range and West Slope communities and industrial users. The project would benefit 10 cities, two water districts and an electric power provider. Beneficial streamflow would increase from the discharge of Windy Gap return flows to the Big Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, Big Dry Creek, and Coal Creek. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the Chimney Hollow Reservoir would inundate 2.9 acres of wetlands and 810 acres of elk and mule deer winter range and black bear foraging habitat. Under the preferred alternative, average annual Colorado River flows below Granby Reservoir, Windy Gap Reservoir, and the confluence with the Blue River would decline by 15 percent, 14 percent, and three percent, respectively. Water quality and water temperature changes would affect fish habitat. The project would also require acquisition or easements on private land and the relocation of utilities. In the long-term, Colorado River depletions would affect recreational uses of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0486D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110413, Final EIS (Volume 1)--811 pages and maps, Responses to Comments (Volume II)--661 pages, December 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 11-29 KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928980791?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 16375344; 15169 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new water storage reservoirs, to be incorporated into the existing Windy Gap Project (WGP), in Grand County, Colorado is proposed. The WGP is located near the town of Granby on Colorado's West Slope and consists of a diversion dam on the Colorado River, a 445-acre-foot reservoir, a pumping plant, and a six-mile pipeline to Granby Reservoir. The project is neither federally owned nor operated, but WGP water is stored and conveyed through the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT) facilities prior to delivery to WGP allottees. Reclamation allows the storage and transport of WGP water in the CBT Project through an excess capacity contract with the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The WGP was originally planned to divert an estimated longterm annual average of 56,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River. However, the WGP has been unable to provide the expected yield due to its junior water right and periodic lack of excess capacity in the CBT Project. In addition, the WGP does not currently provide annual carry-over water storage for the Middle Park Water Conservancy District on the West Slope. Under the desired condition, 30,000 acre-feet of additional firm annual yield would be added to reservoir storage capacity, along with ancillary facilities capable of supporting delivery of that water. The proposed Windy Gap Firming Project is a collaborative effort of 14 water providers and users facilitated by the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, would involve the creation of an impoundment, known as the Chimney Hollow Reservoir, with a capacity of 90,000 acre-feet. Water would be conveyed to the reservoir via a new pipeline connection to existing East Slope C-BT facilities. New connections between the reservoir and Carter Lake would allow delivery of water to project participants using existing infrastructure. Prepositioning would involve the use of available Adams Tunnel capacity to deliver C-BT water to Chimney Hollow Reservoir to occupy storage space that is not occupied by WGP water. The delivery of C-BT water from Granby Reservoir to Chimney Hollow Reservoir would create space for WGP water in Granby Reservoir. When WGP water is diverted into Granby Reservoir, the C-BT water in Chimney Hollow Reservoir would be exchanged for a like amount of WGP water in Granby Reservoir. Total allowable C-BT storage would not change and the existing C-BT diversions would not be expanded. The other action alternatives would involve creation of one of three other candidate reservoirs. Under Alternative 3, storage need would be met using a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Jasper East Reservoir. Alternative 4 would employ a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Rockwell/Mueller Creek Reservoir. Alternative 5 would use a combination of 60,000 acre-feet in Dry Creek Reservoir and 30,000 acre-feet in Rockwell Reservoir. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The firming project would increase yield over that of the existing WGP and provide more reliable water deliveries to Front Range and West Slope communities and industrial users. The project would benefit 10 cities, two water districts and an electric power provider. Beneficial streamflow would increase from the discharge of Windy Gap return flows to the Big Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, Big Dry Creek, and Coal Creek. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the Chimney Hollow Reservoir would inundate 2.9 acres of wetlands and 810 acres of elk and mule deer winter range and black bear foraging habitat. Under the preferred alternative, average annual Colorado River flows below Granby Reservoir, Windy Gap Reservoir, and the confluence with the Blue River would decline by 15 percent, 14 percent, and three percent, respectively. Water quality and water temperature changes would affect fish habitat. The project would also require acquisition or easements on private land and the relocation of utilities. In the long-term, Colorado River depletions would affect recreational uses of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0486D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110413, Final EIS (Volume 1)--811 pages and maps, Responses to Comments (Volume II)--661 pages, December 9, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 11-29 KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16375344?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EVERGLADES RESTORATION TRANSITION PLAN, BROWARD AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 16371977; 15172 AB - PURPOSE: The Everglades Restoration Transition Plan (ERTP) to modify water management operating criteria for features of the Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) Project is proposed to provide further hydrological improvements consistent with protection of multiple listed species. The C&SF Project was designed and constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers for the local sponsor, the South Florida Water Management District. The Corps operates and maintains project works on the St. Lucie Canal; Caloosahatchee River; Herbert Hoover Dike and Lake Okeechobee major spillways; and the main outlets for Water Conservation Areas Nos. 1, 2, and 3. The authorized purposes of the C&SF Project include flood control; water supply for agricultural irrigation, municipalities and industry, and Everglades National Park (ENP); regional groundwater control and prevention of saltwater intrusion; enhancement of fish and wildlife; and recreation. The ERTP would supersede the 2006 Interim Operational Plan for Protection of the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow (IOP) and maximize operational flexibilities in order to improve conditions for the snail kite, wood stork and other wading birds and their habitats in south Florida, while maintaining nesting season requirements for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow (CSSS). The ERTP would affect portions of several counties as well as portions of ENP, Big Cypress National Preserve, and adjacent areas. The proposed structural and operational changes would apply to the constructed features of the Modified Water Deliveries (MWD) to ENP Project and the Canal-111 South Dade Project until a combined operational plan is implemented. ERTP objectives include improving conditions in Water Conservation Area 3A (WCA-3A) which supports extensive landscapes, including ridge and slough patterns and tree islands, and provides critical habitat. It is the homeland of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians and supports their traditional and contemporary lifestyles. Over the past decade, however, there have been drastic declines in snail kite numbers and nesting success in WCA-3A, as well as continued slow declines in tree island size and number. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under Alternative 9E1, which is the final recommended plan, a revised WCA-3A interim regulation schedule would allow for the ability to make maximum releases earlier while providing a greater amount of transition time to and from those maximum releases. Existing water management structures such as S-12C, S-333, and S-346 would be used to assist in moving water out of WCA-3A while, under certain conditions, providing additional water to Northeast Shark River Slough. In addition, a newly constructed structure (S-332DX1) would be utilized to assist in maintaining desirable water levels in ENP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: More flexible operating criteria would provide a means for reducing high water periods and prolonged flooding within WCA-3A, thus restoring vegetation and directly benefiting snail kite and their primary food source, the apple snail. Protective levels for the CSSS would be maintained and periodic scientists calls would take advantage of the best science currently available to enable real-time water management decisions. Implementation of the recommended plan would be an incremental component in the restoration of habitat and a step toward multi-species management that is expected to contribute to a net beneficial impact on the regional ecosystem. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the ERTP would not avoid impacts to listed species. Significant reductions in the water level within some WCA-3A zones could impact water quality, vegetation, and wading birds. Less water would be delivered to the South Dade Conveyance System, but agricultural impacts would be negligible. Further fluctuations created through controlled staging of the water could adversely impact cultural resources. Airboat access to some areas of WCA-3A could be restricted during dry periods. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110416, Volume1--1,234 pages, Volume 2--928 pages, Water Control Plan--56 pages, December 9, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Preserves KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Big Cypress National Preserve KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16371977?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+TRANSITION+PLAN%2C+BROWARD+AND+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+TRANSITION+PLAN%2C+BROWARD+AND+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-15 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Small-Scale Mechanical Properties of Biopolymers AN - 1855078066; PQ0003946057 AB - The use of biopolymers to improve the engineering properties of soil has received attention in recent years, stimulated by potential cost savings and the low environmental impact of this class of materials. The purpose of this work is to improve the understanding of precisely how biopolymers strengthen soil and to quantify the small-scale mechanical properties of biopolymers for implementation in physics-based numerical models. The authors describe the initial efforts to develop viable methods to form biopolymer bonds between grains of naturally occurring materials and present the results of mechanical properties experiments on these bonds. The subject biopolymer was an exopolysaccharide from Rhizobium tropici (ATCC #49672). The initial experiments indicate that the stiffness of bonds ranged from 1 GPa after approximately 1 h of curing to plateau values as high as 3.8 GPa for extended cure times. For bonds with neck areas in the range of 0.01-0.06 mm2, the cohesive tensile strength of the bonds ranged from 16 to 62 MPa, but averaged approximately 20 MPa. The associated cohesive failure strains in tension ranged from 0.013 to 0.042. Cyclic loading experiments were conducted to provide information on the mechanical behavior of the biopolymer and to support subsequent constitutive modeling. The results are analyzed and discussed in terms of the underlying viscoelastic behavior, paying particular attention to the variations in stiffness and internal friction as functions of cure time, frequency, and amplitude. JF - Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering AU - Cole, D M AU - Ringelberg, D B AU - Reynolds, C M AD - Research Civil Engineer, Engineer Research and Development Center-Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, 72 Lyme Rd., Hanover, NH 03755., David.M.Cole@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2011/12/08/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Dec 08 SP - 1063 EP - 1074 PB - American Society of Civil Engineers, 345 E. 47th St. New York NY 10017-2398 United States VL - 138 IS - 9 SN - 1090-0241, 1090-0241 KW - Environment Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - Technical Papers KW - Mechanical properties KW - Soil properties KW - Polymer KW - Experimentation KW - Micromechanics KW - Biopolymer KW - Soil strengthening KW - Laboratory experiments KW - Environmental Effects KW - Biopolymers KW - Failures KW - Strain KW - Costs KW - Soil KW - Engineering KW - Plateaus KW - Soils KW - Tensile strength KW - Grains KW - Curing KW - Mathematical models KW - Rhizobium tropici KW - Environmental impact KW - Cyclic loading KW - Strength KW - Soil mechanics KW - Friction KW - Tension KW - Q2 09103:Information services KW - SW 0810:General KW - ENA 15:Renewable Resources-Terrestrial UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1855078066?accountid=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+Geotechnical+and+Geoenvironmental+Engineering&rft.atitle=Small-Scale+Mechanical+Properties+of+Biopolymers&rft.au=Cole%2C+D+M%3BRingelberg%2C+D+B%3BReynolds%2C+C+M&rft.aulast=Cole&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2011-12-08&rft.volume=138&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1063&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Geotechnical+and+Geoenvironmental+Engineering&rft.issn=10900241&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F%28ASCE%29GT.1943-5606.0000680 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Mathematical models; Soil mechanics; Soils; Environmental impact; Failures; Tensile strength; Cyclic loading; Curing; Mechanical properties; Soil; Plateaus; Soil properties; Biopolymers; Grains; Costs; Environmental Effects; Strength; Engineering; Friction; Strain; Tension; Rhizobium tropici DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000680 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Response of permafrost to anthropogenic land surface disturbance near Fairbanks, Alaska AN - 959098868; 2012-035917 AB - Permafrost near Fairbanks Alaska is relatively warm (measured between -1 and 0 degrees C in this study), and is thus highly susceptible to thawing following surface disturbance by land clearing or fire. The surface moss layer and other vegetation are important insulators for near-surface permafrost in the summer months. The removal of this insulation causes the seasonally thawed (active layer) depth to increase and eventually results in formation of taliks (thawed ground below the seasonally frozen active layer). We have been investigating the response of permafrost seasonal thaw depths and rates in soils commonly found around Fairbanks, Alaska following anthropogenic disturbances such as trails, roads, and large clearings. This information is useful to predict the impact of future disturbances on the permafrost landscape and on local ecology and aids in modeling permafrost stability under land that has already been cleared of vegetation. We combined direct current resistivity, ground-penetrating radar (GPR), and borehole data to evaluate permafrost top-down thawing at multiple locations in the Fairbanks area: on Fort Wainwright north of the Chena River, south of the Chena River within Yukon Training Area (YTA), and at the Farmer's Loop Permafrost Research Site. These sites were cleared of vegetation in the past and were selected to represent time since disturbance. The trails north of the Chena River were cleared in 1994 and were surveyed with GPR in 1994-1995, the YTA site was cleared around 1965, and the Farmer's Loop site was cleared in 1946. These sites represent varying types of soil including alluvial soils (containing sandy gravel capped with sandy silt) on Fort Wainwright and thick loess at Farmer's Loop Road. The YTA site does not contain deep borings for detailed stratigraphic interpretation, but hand auguring confirmed this site also contains thick loess at the surface. Resistivity data were used to discern taliks from permafrost and were compared to the 1994-1995 GPR data at the Fort Wainwright site. Resistivity values at the loess sites were in the range of 200-300 ohm-m for "warm" frozen silt and generally over 3,000 ohm-m in frozen alluvium. Permafrost has thawed to depths greater than 9 m in portions of all the sites and patterned ground due to thawed ice wedges can be seen at the YTA site. Thermokarst wetlands are present along trails at the alluvial site and in depressions created by melting of ice wedges at the Yukon Training Area site. The results of this study provide long-term rates of top-down permafrost thaw at sites mechanically cleared of vegetation, relative subsidence measurements compared to surrounding undisturbed land, and examples of landscape change due to vegetation removal. JF - American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting AU - Astley (CRREL), Beth N AU - Douglas (CRREL), Thomas A AU - Campbell (CRREL), Seth AU - Snyder, C AU - Goggin, Elise M AU - Saari (CRREL), Stephanie P AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2011/12// PY - 2011 DA - December 2011 SP - Abstract C41B EP - 0392 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 2011 KW - United States KW - soils KW - soil mechanics KW - Fairbanks Alaska KW - permafrost KW - human activity KW - vegetation KW - freezing KW - thawing KW - temperature KW - ice KW - Fairbanks Quadrangle KW - ground ice KW - Alaska KW - active layer KW - frozen ground KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/959098868?accountid=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=American+Geophysical+Union+Fall+Meeting&rft.atitle=Response+of+permafrost+to+anthropogenic+land+surface+disturbance+near+Fairbanks%2C+Alaska&rft.au=Astley+%28CRREL%29%2C+Beth+N%3BDouglas+%28CRREL%29%2C+Thomas+A%3BCampbell+%28CRREL%29%2C+Seth%3BSnyder%2C+C%3BGoggin%2C+Elise+M%3BSaari+%28CRREL%29%2C+Stephanie+P%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Astley+%28CRREL%29&rft.aufirst=Beth&rft.date=2011-12-01&rft.volume=2011&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=American+Geophysical+Union+Fall+Meeting&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/SFgate/SFgate?language=English&verbose=0&listenv=table&application=fm11&convert=&converthl=&refinequery=&formintern=&formextern=&transquery=an%3dc41b&_lines=&multiple=0&descriptor=%2fdata%2fepubs%2fwais%2findexes%2ffm11%2ffm11%7c1000%7c4580%7cResponse%20of%20Permafrost%20to%20Anthropogenic%20Land%20Surface%20Disturbance%20near%20Fairbanks%2c%20Alaska%7cHTML%7clocalhost:0%7c%2fdata%2fepubs%2fwais%2findexes%2ffm11%2ffm11%7c16014484%2016019064%20%2fdata2%2fepubs%2fwais%2fdata%2ffm11%2ffm11.txt LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - American Geophysical Union 2011 fall meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by, and/or abstract, Copyright, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, United States N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - #07548 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - active layer; Alaska; Fairbanks Alaska; Fairbanks Quadrangle; freezing; frozen ground; ground ice; human activity; ice; permafrost; soil mechanics; soils; temperature; thawing; United States; vegetation ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Effects of a nonnative, invasive lovegrass on Agave palmeri distribution, abundance, and insect pollinator communities AN - 926880610; 16353835 AB - Nonnative Lehmann lovegrass (Eragrostis lehmanniana) has invaded large areas of the Southwestern United States, and its impact on native plants is not fully understood. Palmer's agave (Agave palmeri), an important resource for many pollinators, is a key native plant potentially threatened by E. lehmanniana. Understanding potential impacts of E. lehmanniana on A. palmeri is critical for anticipating the future of the desert community where they coexist and for addressing management concerns about associated threatened and endangered species. Our study provides strong indications that E. lehmanniana negatively impacts A. palmeri in several ways. Areas of high E. lehmanniana abundance were associated with significantly lower densities and greater relative frequencies of small A. palmeri, suggesting that E. lehmanniana may exclude A. palmeri. There were no significant differences in species richness, abundance, or community composition when comparing flower associates associated with A. palmeri in areas of high and low E. lehmanniana abundance. However, we did find significantly lower connectedness within the pollination network associated with A. palmeri in areas with high E. lehmanniana abundance. Although E. lehmanniana forms thick stands that would presumably increase fire frequency, there was no significant association between E. lehmanniana and fire frequency. Interestingly, medium to high densities of A. palmeri were associated with areas of greater fire frequency. The complex ramifications of E. lehmanniana invasion for the long-lived A. palmeri and interlinked desert community warrant continued study, as these species are likely to continue to be found in close association due to their similar soil preferences. JF - Biodiversity and Conservation AU - Lindsay, Denise L AU - Bailey, Pamela AU - Lance, Richard F AU - Clifford, Michael J AU - Delph, Robert AU - Cobb, Neil S AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS, 39180, USA, denise.l.lindsay@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2011/12// PY - 2011 DA - Dec 2011 SP - 3251 EP - 3266 PB - Springer Science+Business Media, Van Godewijckstraat 30 Dordrecht 3311 GX Netherlands VL - 20 IS - 13 SN - 0960-3115, 0960-3115 KW - Sustainability Science Abstracts; Ecology Abstracts KW - Abundance KW - Biodiversity KW - Community composition KW - Conservation KW - Deserts KW - Endangered species KW - Fires KW - Flowers KW - Pollination KW - Pollinators KW - Soil KW - Species richness KW - abundance KW - flowers KW - insects KW - invasions KW - relative abundance KW - species richness KW - Agave palmeri KW - Agave KW - Eragrostis lehmanniana KW - USA UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/926880610?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aecology&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Biodiversity+and+Conservation&rft.atitle=Effects+of+a+nonnative%2C+invasive+lovegrass+on+Agave+palmeri+distribution%2C+abundance%2C+and+insect+pollinator+communities&rft.au=Lindsay%2C+Denise+L%3BBailey%2C+Pamela%3BLance%2C+Richard+F%3BClifford%2C+Michael+J%3BDelph%2C+Robert%3BCobb%2C+Neil+S&rft.aulast=Lindsay&rft.aufirst=Denise&rft.date=2011-12-01&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=13&rft.spage=3251&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Biodiversity+and+Conservation&rft.issn=09603115&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs10531-011-0133-x LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2012-09-24 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Pollination; Soil; Fires; Flowers; Community composition; Deserts; Pollinators; Abundance; Conservation; Endangered species; Biodiversity; Species richness; species richness; relative abundance; invasions; insects; flowers; abundance; Agave palmeri; Agave; Eragrostis lehmanniana; USA DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-0133-x ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Investigating problematic hydric soils using hydrology, IRIS tubes, chemistry, and the hydric soils technical standard AN - 921716082; 2012-022616 JF - Soil Science Society of America Journal AU - Berkowitz, Jacob F AU - Sallee, James Barrett Y1 - 2011/12// PY - 2011 DA - December 2011 SP - 2379 EP - 2385 PB - Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI VL - 75 IS - 6 SN - 0361-5995, 0361-5995 KW - United States KW - Great Lakes region KW - mapping KW - laboratory studies KW - total organic carbon KW - reduction KW - geochemistry KW - indicator of reduction in soils KW - Eh KW - soils KW - hydrology KW - total carbon KW - North America KW - experimental studies KW - soil profiles KW - micromorphology KW - rainfall KW - indicators KW - morphology KW - organic compounds KW - wetlands KW - identification KW - classification KW - hydric soils KW - Michigan KW - field studies KW - 25:Soils UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/921716082?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Soil+Science+Society+of+America+Journal&rft.atitle=Investigating+problematic+hydric+soils+using+hydrology%2C+IRIS+tubes%2C+chemistry%2C+and+the+hydric+soils+technical+standard&rft.au=Berkowitz%2C+Jacob+F%3BSallee%2C+James+Barrett&rft.aulast=Berkowitz&rft.aufirst=Jacob&rft.date=2011-12-01&rft.volume=75&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=2379&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Soil+Science+Society+of+America+Journal&rft.issn=03615995&rft_id=info:doi/10.2136%2Fsssaj2011.0040 L2 - http://soil.scijournals.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 38 N1 - PubXState - WI N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 4 tables, sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - SSSJD4 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - classification; Eh; experimental studies; field studies; geochemistry; Great Lakes region; hydric soils; hydrology; identification; indicator of reduction in soils; indicators; laboratory studies; mapping; Michigan; micromorphology; morphology; North America; organic compounds; rainfall; reduction; soil profiles; soils; total carbon; total organic carbon; United States; wetlands DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2011.0040 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Application of Proper Orthogonal Decomposition (POD) to inverse problems in saturated groundwater flow AN - 911168763; 16077579 AB - We develop a new Proper Orthogonal Decomposition (POD) reduced order model for saturated groundwater flow, and apply that model to an inverse problem for the hydraulic conductivity field. We use sensitivities as the POD basis. We compare the output when the optimizer uses the reduced order model against results obtained with a full PDE based model. The solutions generated using the POD reduced model are comparable in residual norm to the solutions formed using only the full-scale model. The material parameters are similarly comparable. The time to solution when using the reduced model is reduced by at least an order of magnitude, as are the number of calls to the full model. JF - Advances in Water Resources AU - Winton, Corey AU - Pettway, Jackie AU - Kelley, C T AU - Howington, Stacy AU - Eslinger, Owen J AD - 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, United States, Corey.W.Winton@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2011/12// PY - 2011 DA - Dec 2011 SP - 1519 EP - 1526 PB - Elsevier B.V., The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB United Kingdom VL - 34 IS - 12 SN - 0309-1708, 0309-1708 KW - Environment Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Aqualine Abstracts; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts KW - Hydraulic conductivity KW - Sensitivity KW - Hydraulics KW - Degradation KW - Groundwater flow KW - Water resources KW - Permeability Coefficient KW - Decomposition KW - Model Studies KW - Ground water KW - Groundwater KW - Groundwater Movement KW - AQ 00001:Water Resources and Supplies KW - Q2 09381:Cables KW - M2 556.18:Water Management (556.18) KW - SW 6010:Structures KW - ENA 16:Renewable Resources-Water UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/911168763?accountid=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=Advances+in+Water+Resources&rft.atitle=Application+of+Proper+Orthogonal+Decomposition+%28POD%29+to+inverse+problems+in+saturated+groundwater+flow&rft.au=Winton%2C+Corey%3BPettway%2C+Jackie%3BKelley%2C+C+T%3BHowington%2C+Stacy%3BEslinger%2C+Owen+J&rft.aulast=Winton&rft.aufirst=Corey&rft.date=2011-12-01&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=1519&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-19 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Degradation; Ground water; Water resources; Hydraulic conductivity; Groundwater flow; Hydraulics; Sensitivity; Groundwater; Decomposition; Permeability Coefficient; Groundwater Movement; Model Studies DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2011.09.007 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Investigating the geomorphic behavior of the Cape Canaveral coast through high-resolution beach monitoring, sediment analysis, oceanographic observations, and numerical modeling AN - 1828846423; 2016-085563 AB - The salient of Cape Canaveral interrupts a relatively straight, sandy, passive margin coastline that extends nearly 400 km from the St. Johns River mouth to the St. Lucie Inlet along the Florida Atlantic coast. OSL dating indicates that the modern cape has been prograding rapidly since the LGM and subtle topographic features, inland from the modern cape, suggest that this salient has persisted over several sea level cycles since the early Pleistocene. Dynamic shoreline change over the past decade at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) is threatening critical NASA infrastructure and has prompted officials to develop a mitigation strategy through a partnership among researchers from the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, private coastal engineering firms, and the University of Florida. Since May 2009, the research team has assembled data on decadal to event-scale shoreline change (dGPS), beach and nearshore morphodynamics (dGPS and Argus), beach sedimentary character (grain size analysis), wave climate and transformation (ADCP), and inner shelf bathymetry (Echo Sounding) in an effort to assess dune vulnerability and flooding risk. In addition, SWAN numerical modeling simulations offer insight into the influence of irregular bathymetry (cape-associated shoals) on the alteration of spatial patterns of wave energy flux during a decadal shift in deep-water wave climate. Beach-fx, modeling of cross-shore profile evolution is being applied to evaluate the performance of alternative protective measures, estimate project costs, and examine ecological influences of the proposed alternative protective measures. By combining contemporaneous data of coastal geomorphic and sedimentary response to wave forcing with numerical model results that explore a range of climate scenarios, we aim to develop a useful understanding of the coastal geomorphic behavior at KSC that can be used to make a mitigation recommendation. JF - American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting AU - Adams, Peter N AU - Jaeger, J M AU - MacKenzie, R A AU - Kline, S W AU - Maibauer, B J AU - Plant, N G AU - Gravens, M B AU - Pierro, T P AU - Shaffer, J AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2011/12// PY - 2011 DA - December 2011 SP - Abstract EP51D EP - 07 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 2011 KW - United States KW - sand KW - shore features KW - numerical models KW - Cape Canaveral KW - clastic sediments KW - grain size KW - sedimentation KW - shorelines KW - simulation KW - Florida KW - beaches KW - sea-level changes KW - Saint Johns River basin KW - Brevard County Florida KW - sediments KW - inner shelf KW - ecology KW - continental shelf KW - bathymetry KW - climate forcing KW - dynamic properties KW - 23:Geomorphology KW - 06A:Sedimentary petrology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1828846423?accountid=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=American+Geophysical+Union+Fall+Meeting&rft.atitle=Investigating+the+geomorphic+behavior+of+the+Cape+Canaveral+coast+through+high-resolution+beach+monitoring%2C+sediment+analysis%2C+oceanographic+observations%2C+and+numerical+modeling&rft.au=Adams%2C+Peter+N%3BJaeger%2C+J+M%3BMacKenzie%2C+R+A%3BKline%2C+S+W%3BMaibauer%2C+B+J%3BPlant%2C+N+G%3BGravens%2C+M+B%3BPierro%2C+T+P%3BShaffer%2C+J%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Adams&rft.aufirst=Peter&rft.date=2011-12-01&rft.volume=2011&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=American+Geophysical+Union+Fall+Meeting&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - American Geophysical Union 2011 fall meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2016, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by, and/or abstract, Copyright, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, United States N1 - Date revised - 2016-01-01 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Last updated - 2016-10-25 N1 - CODEN - #07548 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - bathymetry; beaches; Brevard County Florida; Cape Canaveral; clastic sediments; climate forcing; continental shelf; dynamic properties; ecology; Florida; grain size; inner shelf; numerical models; Saint Johns River basin; sand; sea-level changes; sedimentation; sediments; shore features; shorelines; simulation; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Hydrologic controls on wash load sediment transport within semiarid rangelands AN - 1734264479; 2015-107764 AB - This study explores the influence of rainfall and runoff production on wash load sediment transport in a low-ordered, ephemeral watershed in southeast Arizona. Wash load concentrations measured at the watershed outlet generally decreased throughout a runoff event and were better correlated with the rainfall volume that fell within the six minutes (the watershed's "time of concentration") before the sediment concentration was measured than with the runoff discharge. The difference between the rainfall volume (per unit time) and the runoff discharge was primarily due to infiltration and transmission losses, processes that reduce runoff volume but did not appear to affect the wash load concentration within the runoff. The magnitudes of the transmission losses are relatively large in this watershed, becoming larger and more variable with increasing drainage area. Transmission losses from a given runoff volume are influenced by the range of physiographic features (e.g., rills, vegetation, rock fragments) in the flow path, and these features may change in time and space. Results indicate that wash load concentrations are set by the sediment entrainment processes occurring on the hillslopes (e.g., rainsplash, overland flow) and do not greatly fluctuate within runoff as it is routed through the watershed. This result suggests that wash load concentration may be better predicted by metrics of rainfall than flow discharge in certain environments. Using rainfall as a predictor of wash load could be useful for estimating fine sediment fluxes in semiarid regions where flow discharge is difficult to monitor and fluvial sediment concentrations are often problematically high. JF - American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting AU - Yuill, B AU - Gasparini, N M AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2011/12// PY - 2011 DA - December 2011 SP - Abstract EP54C EP - 03 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 2011 KW - United States KW - hydrology KW - bedload KW - terrestrial environment KW - sediment transport KW - erosion KW - rainfall KW - semi-arid environment KW - sedimentation KW - watersheds KW - southeastern Arizona KW - water erosion KW - fluvial sedimentation KW - transport KW - runoff KW - Arizona KW - fluvial features KW - rangelands KW - 23:Geomorphology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1734264479?accountid=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=American+Geophysical+Union+Fall+Meeting&rft.atitle=Hydrologic+controls+on+wash+load+sediment+transport+within+semiarid+rangelands&rft.au=Yuill%2C+B%3BGasparini%2C+N+M%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Yuill&rft.aufirst=B&rft.date=2011-12-01&rft.volume=2011&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=American+Geophysical+Union+Fall+Meeting&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - American Geophysical Union 2011 fall meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2015, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by, and/or abstract, Copyright, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, United States N1 - Date revised - 2015-01-01 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Last updated - 2015-11-19 N1 - CODEN - #07548 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Arizona; bedload; erosion; fluvial features; fluvial sedimentation; hydrology; rainfall; rangelands; runoff; sediment transport; sedimentation; semi-arid environment; southeastern Arizona; terrestrial environment; transport; United States; water erosion; watersheds ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Hydrogeologic controls on lake level at Mountain Lake, Virginia AN - 1686061717; 2015-050334 AB - Mountain Lake in Giles County, Virginia has a documented history of severe natural lake-level changes involving groundwater seepage that extend over the past 4200 years. Featured in the 1986 movie Dirty Dancing, the natural lake dried up completely in September 2008 and levels have not yet recovered. A hydrogeologic investigation was undertaken in an effort to determine the factors influencing lake level changes. A daily water balance, dipole-dipole electrical resistivity surveying, well logging and chemical sampling have shed light on: 1) the influence of a fault not previously discussed in literature regarding the lake, 2) the seasonal response to precipitation of a forested first-order drainage system in fractured rock, and 3) the possibility of flow pathways related to karst features. Geologic controls on lake level were investigated using several techniques. Geophysical surveys using dipole-dipole resistivity located possible subsurface flowpaths both to and from the lake. Well logs, lineament analysis, and joint sampling were used to assess structural controls on lake hydrology. Major ions were sampled at wells, springs, streams, and the lake to evaluate possible mixing of different sources of water in the lake. Groundwater levels were monitored for correlation to lake levels, rainfall events, and possible seismic effects. The hydrology of the lake was quantified with a water balance on a daily time step. Results from the water balance indicate steady net drainage and significant recharge when vegetation is dormant, particularly during rain-on-snow melt events. The resistivity survey reveals discrete areas that represent flow pathways from the lake, as well as flowpaths to springs upgradient of the lake located in the vicinity of the fault. The survey also suggests that some flowpaths may originate outside of the topographic watershed of the lake. Chemical evidence indicates karst may underlie the lakebed. Historical data suggest that artificial intervention to mitigate seepage would be required for lake level recovery in the near future. JF - American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting AU - Roningen (CRREL), J M AU - Burbey, T J AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2011/12// PY - 2011 DA - December 2011 SP - Abstract H13A EP - 1184 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 2011 KW - United States KW - lake-level changes KW - monitoring KW - Virginia KW - Quaternary KW - paleohydrology KW - geophysical methods KW - electrical methods KW - Mountain Lake KW - water balance KW - hydrochemistry KW - Holocene KW - dipole-dipole methods KW - seepage KW - ground water KW - flows KW - Cenozoic KW - recharge KW - levels KW - precipitation KW - Giles County Virginia KW - geochemistry KW - 24:Quaternary geology KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1686061717?accountid=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=American+Geophysical+Union+Fall+Meeting&rft.atitle=Hydrogeologic+controls+on+lake+level+at+Mountain+Lake%2C+Virginia&rft.au=Roningen+%28CRREL%29%2C+J+M%3BBurbey%2C+T+J%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Roningen+%28CRREL%29&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2011-12-01&rft.volume=2011&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=American+Geophysical+Union+Fall+Meeting&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - American Geophysical Union 2011 fall meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2015, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by, and/or abstract, Copyright, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, United States N1 - Date revised - 2015-01-01 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Last updated - 2015-06-05 N1 - CODEN - #07548 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Cenozoic; dipole-dipole methods; electrical methods; flows; geochemistry; geophysical methods; Giles County Virginia; ground water; Holocene; hydrochemistry; lake-level changes; levels; monitoring; Mountain Lake; paleohydrology; precipitation; Quaternary; recharge; seepage; United States; Virginia; water balance ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Modeling of suspended sediments in Chesapeake Bay AN - 1676586055; 2015-038384 AB - For the Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuary in the United States, four movements have been identified as sediment pathways in which--seaward movement driven by the Susquehanna River at the head, movement from the Main Bay to tributaries, input from the ocean through the entrance of the Bay, and the shoreline erosion. To the management, this poses the source of sediments to the system. The sediment loading sources are identified as above-fall-line watershed loading, non-point source watershed loading, loading from shoreline erosion, and influx from the ocean through the entrance. The sediments introduced from the sources are transported through the water column as well as over the bed. The sediments are either accumulated (deposition) or winnowed from the bed (resuspension). The sediments in an estuary are in principle mixed sediments. Unlike many rivers, cohesive sediments dominate the sediment population. When a model is built to accommodate physical processes, the significance of physico-chemical and biological processes associated with cohesive sediments such as flocculation should be acknowledged. A modeling system is built upon the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) Water Quality (WQ) modeling platform. The watershed model, HSPF, provides sediment loading from the watershed to a water quality model, CE-QUAL-ICM, and hydrological forcing to a hydrodynamic model, CH3D. CH3D is also forced by meteorological forcing including surface heat flux and wind stress which separately forces a wave model. The sediment transport module was built into ICM and currently two independent models are included--one is ROMS-CSTM (regional ocean modeling system community sediment transport model) and SEDZLJ. The bottom currents from CH3D and wave forcing are input to a bottom boundary layer (BBL) model through which bottom shear stresses are calculated. Additional loading from shoreline erosion is also fed to the modeling system. Transport in the water column is controlled by the offline information from CH3D to CE-QUAL-ICM. Deposition on the bed is from the settling sediments in the water column. The bed strata are updated based on erosion-deposition processes. The model was calibrated and validated over 7 year time period between 1994 and 2000 using the CBP long term monitoring data. Both interannual and intra-annual signals were captured. Spatially both Estuary turbidity maximum (ETM) zone in the upper Bay and the secondary turbidity maximum (STM) in the lower Bay were reproduced. Surface TSS is correlated to watershed loading. Bottom TSS primarily responds to bottom stress. Upper Bay ETM vary with tidal and event scales. Cross-Bay sediment concentration varies with corresponding bottom stress as well as advection. The model has been integrated to ICM and provides long term sediment management for CBP. JF - American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting AU - Kim, S AU - Harris, C K AU - Cerco, C AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2011/12// PY - 2011 DA - December 2011 SP - Abstract OS53B EP - 1773 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 2011 KW - United States KW - Chesapeake Bay KW - sediment transport KW - marine pollution KW - marine geology KW - shorelines KW - pollution KW - suspended materials KW - nonpoint sources KW - marine sediments KW - transport KW - sediments KW - hydrodynamics KW - turbidity KW - 07:Oceanography UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1676586055?accountid=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=American+Geophysical+Union+Fall+Meeting&rft.atitle=Modeling+of+suspended+sediments+in+Chesapeake+Bay&rft.au=Kim%2C+S%3BHarris%2C+C+K%3BCerco%2C+C%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Kim&rft.aufirst=S&rft.date=2011-12-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - American Geophysical Union 2011 fall meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2015, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by, and/or abstract, Copyright, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, United States N1 - Date revised - 2015-01-01 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Last updated - 2015-04-30 N1 - CODEN - #07548 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Chesapeake Bay; hydrodynamics; marine geology; marine pollution; marine sediments; nonpoint sources; pollution; sediment transport; sediments; shorelines; suspended materials; transport; turbidity; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Finite element analysis of levees with woody vegetation AN - 1668231179; 2015-030482 AB - The impact of woody vegetation on levee stability is of significant concern, yet the soil-root zone processes that dictate much of this impact are not fully understood. The root system can create locally anisotropic, heterogeneous modifications to material properties related to subsurface hydrodynamics and structural mechanics. The complexity of the physical processes, material heterogeneity and inherent three-dimensionality put such problems outside the range of traditional methods of analysis. Specifically, seepage and stability analysis for engineered levees is typically carried out on vertical cross-sections using steady-state subsurface flow and limit-equilibrium or semi-empirical based approaches for soil mechanics. However, vegetation can generate local modifications in the root zone that lead to genuinely three-dimensional behavior, while the temporal scale of flooding events and range of soil deformations possible make steady-state or equilibrium approaches inadequate. In this work, we consider the processes of variably saturated flow and elastic-plastic deformation using fully three-dimensional, nonlinear continuum mechanical models. We present mathematical model formulations and three-dimensional finite elements for simulating levee seepage and soil mechanics. In particular, we present factor of safety calculations for levee stability under various surface loads and seepage conditions and a verification and validation test set. The test set allows comparison to field data and traditional analytical methods as well as inter-comparison of various finite elements in terms of accuracy, efficiency, and robustness. JF - American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting AU - Farthing, M W AU - Kees, C E AU - Corcoran, M K AU - Peters, J F AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2011/12// PY - 2011 DA - December 2011 SP - Abstract H33G EP - 1390 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 2011 KW - hydrology KW - soil mechanics KW - anisotropic materials KW - soil dynamics KW - rhizosphere KW - porous materials KW - mathematical models KW - vegetation KW - deformation KW - equilibrium KW - levees KW - finite element analysis KW - hydrodynamics KW - plasticity KW - fluvial environment KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1668231179?accountid=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=American+Geophysical+Union+Fall+Meeting&rft.atitle=Finite+element+analysis+of+levees+with+woody+vegetation&rft.au=Farthing%2C+M+W%3BKees%2C+C+E%3BCorcoran%2C+M+K%3BPeters%2C+J+F%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Farthing&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2011-12-01&rft.volume=2011&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=American+Geophysical+Union+Fall+Meeting&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://abstractsearch.agu.org/meetings/2011/FM/sections/H/sessions/H33G/abstracts/H33G-1390 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - American Geophysical Union 2011 fall meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2015, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by, and/or abstract, Copyright, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, United States N1 - Date revised - 2015-01-01 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Last updated - 2015-04-02 N1 - CODEN - #07548 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - anisotropic materials; deformation; equilibrium; finite element analysis; fluvial environment; hydrodynamics; hydrology; levees; mathematical models; plasticity; porous materials; rhizosphere; soil dynamics; soil mechanics; vegetation ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Submarine underground discharge and possible mechanism responsible for dissociation of marine methane hydrates in the Arctic region AN - 1420509521; 2013-062575 JF - Doklady Earth Sciences AU - Dzyuba, A V AU - Zektser, I S Y1 - 2011/12// PY - 2011 DA - December 2011 SP - 1748 EP - 1752 PB - MAIK Nauka/Interperiodika, Moscow VL - 441 IS - 2 SN - 1028-334X, 1028-334X KW - methane KW - gas hydrates KW - Arctic region KW - aliphatic hydrocarbons KW - Russian Federation KW - Russian Arctic KW - alkanes KW - ground water KW - organic compounds KW - submarine springs KW - Commonwealth of Independent States KW - Barents Sea KW - marine environment KW - White Sea KW - submarine environment KW - hydrocarbons KW - springs KW - Arctic Ocean KW - Pechora Sea KW - ocean floors KW - discharge KW - P-T conditions KW - 07:Oceanography UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1420509521?accountid=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=Doklady+Earth+Sciences&rft.atitle=Submarine+underground+discharge+and+possible+mechanism+responsible+for+dissociation+of+marine+methane+hydrates+in+the+Arctic+region&rft.au=Dzyuba%2C+A+V%3BZektser%2C+I+S&rft.aulast=Dzyuba&rft.aufirst=A&rft.date=2011-12-01&rft.volume=441&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=1748&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Doklady+Earth+Sciences&rft.issn=1028334X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1134%2FS1028334X11120257 L2 - http://www.maik.rssi.ru/cgi-bin/journal.pl?name=earthsci&page=online LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2013, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by Springer Verlag, Berlin, Federal Republic of Germany N1 - Date revised - 2013-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 14 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 2 tables N1 - SuppNotes - Original Russian text: A. V. Dzyuba, I. S. Zektser, 2011, published in Doklady Akademii Nauk, 2011, Vol. 441, No. 6, pp. 816-820. N1 - Last updated - 2013-08-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - aliphatic hydrocarbons; alkanes; Arctic Ocean; Arctic region; Barents Sea; Commonwealth of Independent States; discharge; gas hydrates; ground water; hydrocarbons; marine environment; methane; ocean floors; organic compounds; P-T conditions; Pechora Sea; Russian Arctic; Russian Federation; springs; submarine environment; submarine springs; White Sea DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1134/S1028334X11120257 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Pragmatic Approaches For Water Management Under Climate Change Uncertainty AN - 1081891057; 2011-276748 AB - Water resources management is in a difficult transition phase, trying to accommodate large uncertainties associated with climate change while struggling to implement a difficult set of principles and institutional changes associated with integrated water resources management. Water management is the principal medium through which projected impacts of global warming will be felt and ameliorated. Many standard hydrological practices, based on assumptions of a stationary climate, can be extended to accommodate numerous aspects of climate uncertainty. Classical engineering risk and reliability strategies developed by the water management profession to cope with contemporary climate uncertainties can also be effectively employed during this transition period, while a new family of hydrological tools and better climate change models are developed. An expansion of the concept of "robust decision making," coupled with existing analytical tools and techniques, is the basis for a new approach advocated for planning and designing water resources infrastructure under climate uncertainty. Ultimately, it is not the tools and methods that need to be revamped as much as the suite of decision rules and evaluation principles used for project justification. They need to be aligned to be more compatible with the implications of a highly uncertain future climate trajectory, so that the hydrologic effects of that uncertainty are correctly reflected in the design of water infrastructure. Adapted from the source document. JF - Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) AU - Stakhiv, Eugene Z AD - Technical Director, UNESCO-ICIWaRM, Institute for Water Resources, Alexandria, Virginia 22315 eugene.z.stakhiv@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2011/12// PY - 2011 DA - December 2011 SP - 1183 EP - 1196 PB - Wiley Subscription Services, Hoboken, NJ VL - 47 IS - 6 SN - 1093-474X, 1093-474X KW - Environment and environmental policy - Water, waterways, and water management KW - Environment and environmental policy - Weather, climate, and natural disasters KW - Economic conditions and policy - Economic policy, planning, and development KW - Science and technology policy - Engineering KW - Labor conditions and policy - Work and labor KW - Environment and environmental policy - Architecture and planning KW - climate uncertainty, climate variability, integrated water resources management, adaptive management, robust decision making, economic decision rules KW - Infrastructure KW - United States KW - Engineering KW - Professions KW - Water management KW - Planning KW - Climate KW - Global warming KW - Standards KW - Water KW - Water supply KW - article UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1081891057?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Apais&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+the+American+Water+Resources+Association+%28JAWRA%29&rft.atitle=Pragmatic+Approaches+For+Water+Management+Under+Climate+Change+Uncertainty&rft.au=Stakhiv%2C+Eugene+Z&rft.aulast=Stakhiv&rft.aufirst=Eugene&rft.date=2011-12-01&rft.volume=47&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1183&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+the+American+Water+Resources+Association+%28JAWRA%29&rft.issn=1093474X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111%2Fj.1752-1688.2011.00589.x LA - English DB - PAIS Index N1 - Date revised - 2012-10-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-28 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - United States; Water supply; Climate; Water; Global warming; Water management; Infrastructure; Engineering; Professions; Standards; Planning DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00589.x ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Divergent radiocarbon age distributions of carbon pools in a major temperate river: implications for sources, reactivity, and land-ocean exchanges AN - 1008851954; 638157-159 AB - Rivers collectively transport carbon to the oceans in amounts comparable to other net global carbon fluxes. The characteristics of the carbon pools exported by major world rivers have largely been defined by studies of a single system - the Amazon - yet a significant fraction of global river water and material fluxes are driven by major temperate rivers which have received more limited study. We present new findings on the carbon pools of the Mississippi River system, which drains one of the most highly engineered drainage basins in the world. The three major pools (dissolved organic and inorganic C and particulate organic C; DOC, DIC and POC, respectively) have entirely disparate source-age characteristics, suggesting that each arises from unique reservoirs and/or processes in the Mississippi Basin. In particular, the radiocarbon (14C) contents of the organic matter pools indicate that river DOC arises from surface runoff of contemporary biomass, whereas POC originates from deeper soil horizons and/or protracted river bed erosion. Between the Upper Mississippi and the confluence of the Ohio River, concentrations of DOC and DIC along the mainstem of the river show non-conservative behavior. Downriver of the Ohio River confluence, however, DOC and DIC when corrected for tributary inputs remain essentially unchanged, suggesting the relative inertness of these pools over a significant length of the Mississippi. While a major part of the Mississippi and Ohio River watersheds is agricultural, carbon inputs from corn-dominated regions appear to be relatively limited. The export of carbon pools of highly divergent source-ages from the Mississippi and possibly other major temperate rivers indicates that terrestrial carbon losses from these systems may need to be reassessed in continent-scale and ocean carbon budgets. JF - American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting AU - Bauer, J E AU - Guo, L AU - Perkey, D W AU - Raymond, P AU - Bianchi, T S AU - Grottoli, A G AU - Matsui, Y Y1 - 2011/12// PY - 2011 DA - December 2011 SP - Abstract B32C EP - 05 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 2011 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1008851954?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefinprocess&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=American+Geophysical+Union+Fall+Meeting&rft.atitle=Divergent+radiocarbon+age+distributions+of+carbon+pools+in+a+major+temperate+river%3A+implications+for+sources%2C+reactivity%2C+and+land-ocean+exchanges&rft.au=Bauer%2C+J+E%3BGuo%2C+L%3BPerkey%2C+D+W%3BRaymond%2C+P%3BBianchi%2C+T+S%3BGrottoli%2C+A+G%3BMatsui%2C+Y&rft.aulast=Bauer&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2011-12-01&rft.volume=2011&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=American+Geophysical+Union+Fall+Meeting&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - American Geophysical Union 2011 fall meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef in Process, Copyright 2017, American Geosciences Institute. After editing and indexing, this record will be added to Georef. Reference includes data supplied by, and/or abstract, Copyright, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, United States N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-24 N1 - CODEN - #07548 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Evaluating sand transport through two spillway diversions on the lower Mississippi River during the flood of 2011: implications for land management via controlled diversions AN - 1008850365; 638157-107 AB - The Mississippi River flood of 2011 necessitated operation of both the Bonnet Carre and Morganza spillways, so that up to 25% of the lower river-water discharge plus associated sediment was diverted into Lake Pontchartrain and Atchafalaya River basin, respectively. The design of each spillway is quite different, and here we present data used to analyze the sand transport capacity of both structures. The Morganza Floodway is set several kilometers from a Mississippi River bend reach, is buffered by a wooded floodplain and has a long, contained forebay. This site location and design inhibits movement of sand from the river through the spillway. In contrast, the Bonnet Carre Spillway is positioned adjacent to the river channel and just downstream of two bend reaches; enhanced secondary flow and turbulence associated with this planform contributes to sand suspension, promoting extensive sediment transport through the spillway. Interestingly, despite the depth of the weir separating the Mississippi River channel and the Bonnet Carre Spillway (approximately the upper 10% of the thalweg depth), the spillway captured a significant proportion of channel-bed sand, based on our data for grain-size distribution of sand on the river-channel bed compared to deposits in the spillway. These results indicate that planform controls and sediment transport dynamics can be used to predict the optimal placement of diversion structures intended to distribute water and sediment from the lower Mississippi River to surrounding wetlands, thereby helping prevent coastal erosion and degradation of infrastructure. JF - American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting AU - Czapiga, M J AU - Nittrouer, J A AU - Brantley, C AU - Cash, R W AU - Parker, G AU - Best, J L Y1 - 2011/12// PY - 2011 DA - December 2011 SP - Abstract B24D EP - 03 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 2011 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1008850365?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefinprocess&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=American+Geophysical+Union+Fall+Meeting&rft.atitle=Evaluating+sand+transport+through+two+spillway+diversions+on+the+lower+Mississippi+River+during+the+flood+of+2011%3A+implications+for+land+management+via+controlled+diversions&rft.au=Czapiga%2C+M+J%3BNittrouer%2C+J+A%3BBrantley%2C+C%3BCash%2C+R+W%3BParker%2C+G%3BBest%2C+J+L&rft.aulast=Czapiga&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2011-12-01&rft.volume=2011&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=American+Geophysical+Union+Fall+Meeting&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - American Geophysical Union 2011 fall meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef in Process, Copyright 2017, American Geosciences Institute. After editing and indexing, this record will be added to Georef. Reference includes data supplied by, and/or abstract, Copyright, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, United States N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-24 N1 - CODEN - #07548 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - K ROAD MOAPA SOLAR FACILITY, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - K ROAD MOAPA SOLAR FACILITY, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 920061496; 15156-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Approval of a solar energy ground lease and associated agreements entered into by the Moapa Band of Paiute Indians (the Tribe) for the construction and operation of a solar photovoltaic facility on federal trust lands of the Moapa River Indian Reservation in Clark County, Nevada is proposed. K Road Moapa Solar LLC has entered into an agreement with the Tribe to lease land, up to 50 years, for a solar generating station with the potential to produce up to 350 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would require Bureau of Land Management (BLM) approval of a 0.5 mile right-of-way (ROW) across public lands adjoining the Moapa River Indian Reservation as well as the approval of a plan of development for a 5.5-mile electric transmission line and improvements to an existing utility access road within an existing 4,000-foot-wide utility corridor managed by the BLM. The ROW would be used to link the proposed solar generation facility to the existing Crystal substation on a transmission line with a rating up to 500 kilovolts (kV). The proposed project would be located adjacent to Interstate 15 approximately 30 miles north of Las Vegas. Key issues include those related to air quality, vegetation and rare plant species, ephemeral streams, desert tortoise, and cumulative impacts from projects in the vicinity. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, the solar arrays, substation, and operations building and parking would be contained within a 2,000-acre solar facility footprint. The existing utility access road that originates from Las Vegas Boulevard and provides direct access to the Crystal substation would be the primary access route. Construction would be carried out in three phases of 100 MW to 150 MW each and all associated facilities would be completed during phase 1. The project would require 380 acre feet of water during the construction phase and no more than 20 to 40 acre feet per year for operations and maintenance. Under the reduced solar facility footprint alternative, only phases 1 and 2 would be completed and the final station capacity would be 250 MW of electricity. This alternative would also utilize an alternative corridor for the transmission line ROW. The alternative ROW would be a direct route to the Crystal substation and impact less overall acreage for construction; however, it would traverse an open area of the desert outside of the existing utility corridor. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would generate substantial lease income for the Tribe over a 35-year period while occupying only three percent of the Reservation. Utility connection would provide an opportunity for the Tribe to further develop their travel plaza. The electricity generated by the solar station could be sold to the California and Nevada markets and would assist utilities in meeting their renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb up to 2,153 acres and potentially impact 8,153 acres out of 71,954 acres of the Reservation. Short-term air quality impacts would result from equipment and vehicle emissions. Significant and cumulative impacts to desert tortoise would result from harassment and loss of habitat and foraging area. Desert tortoise on-site would be relocated within the Reservation to prevent impacts; approximately 6,000 acres have been set aside by the Tribe for this purpose. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110400, Draft EIS--338 pages, Appendices--400 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Indian Reservations KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/920061496?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=K+ROAD+MOAPA+SOLAR+FACILITY%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=K+ROAD+MOAPA+SOLAR+FACILITY%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - K ROAD MOAPA SOLAR FACILITY, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - K ROAD MOAPA SOLAR FACILITY, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 920058784; 15156-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Approval of a solar energy ground lease and associated agreements entered into by the Moapa Band of Paiute Indians (the Tribe) for the construction and operation of a solar photovoltaic facility on federal trust lands of the Moapa River Indian Reservation in Clark County, Nevada is proposed. K Road Moapa Solar LLC has entered into an agreement with the Tribe to lease land, up to 50 years, for a solar generating station with the potential to produce up to 350 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would require Bureau of Land Management (BLM) approval of a 0.5 mile right-of-way (ROW) across public lands adjoining the Moapa River Indian Reservation as well as the approval of a plan of development for a 5.5-mile electric transmission line and improvements to an existing utility access road within an existing 4,000-foot-wide utility corridor managed by the BLM. The ROW would be used to link the proposed solar generation facility to the existing Crystal substation on a transmission line with a rating up to 500 kilovolts (kV). The proposed project would be located adjacent to Interstate 15 approximately 30 miles north of Las Vegas. Key issues include those related to air quality, vegetation and rare plant species, ephemeral streams, desert tortoise, and cumulative impacts from projects in the vicinity. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, the solar arrays, substation, and operations building and parking would be contained within a 2,000-acre solar facility footprint. The existing utility access road that originates from Las Vegas Boulevard and provides direct access to the Crystal substation would be the primary access route. Construction would be carried out in three phases of 100 MW to 150 MW each and all associated facilities would be completed during phase 1. The project would require 380 acre feet of water during the construction phase and no more than 20 to 40 acre feet per year for operations and maintenance. Under the reduced solar facility footprint alternative, only phases 1 and 2 would be completed and the final station capacity would be 250 MW of electricity. This alternative would also utilize an alternative corridor for the transmission line ROW. The alternative ROW would be a direct route to the Crystal substation and impact less overall acreage for construction; however, it would traverse an open area of the desert outside of the existing utility corridor. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would generate substantial lease income for the Tribe over a 35-year period while occupying only three percent of the Reservation. Utility connection would provide an opportunity for the Tribe to further develop their travel plaza. The electricity generated by the solar station could be sold to the California and Nevada markets and would assist utilities in meeting their renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb up to 2,153 acres and potentially impact 8,153 acres out of 71,954 acres of the Reservation. Short-term air quality impacts would result from equipment and vehicle emissions. Significant and cumulative impacts to desert tortoise would result from harassment and loss of habitat and foraging area. Desert tortoise on-site would be relocated within the Reservation to prevent impacts; approximately 6,000 acres have been set aside by the Tribe for this purpose. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110400, Draft EIS--338 pages, Appendices--400 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Indian Reservations KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/920058784?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=K+ROAD+MOAPA+SOLAR+FACILITY%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=K+ROAD+MOAPA+SOLAR+FACILITY%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. [Part 35 of 35] T2 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 918926676; 15144-7_0035 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918926676?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. [Part 34 of 35] T2 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 918926638; 15144-7_0034 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918926638?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. [Part 33 of 35] T2 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 918926608; 15144-7_0033 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918926608?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. [Part 32 of 35] T2 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 918926562; 15144-7_0032 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918926562?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. [Part 15 of 35] T2 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 918926489; 15144-7_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918926489?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. [Part 14 of 35] T2 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 918926453; 15144-7_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918926453?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. [Part 31 of 35] T2 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 918925079; 15144-7_0031 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918925079?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. [Part 30 of 35] T2 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 918925059; 15144-7_0030 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918925059?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. [Part 29 of 35] T2 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 918925013; 15144-7_0029 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918925013?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. [Part 28 of 35] T2 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 918924930; 15144-7_0028 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918924930?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. [Part 27 of 35] T2 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 918924901; 15144-7_0027 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918924901?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. [Part 26 of 35] T2 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 918924873; 15144-7_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918924873?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. [Part 25 of 35] T2 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 918924837; 15144-7_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918924837?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. [Part 6 of 35] T2 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 918924805; 15144-7_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918924805?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, ST. JAMES TO WINDOM, COTTONWOOD AND WATONWAN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1983). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, ST. JAMES TO WINDOM, COTTONWOOD AND WATONWAN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1983). AN - 918922923; 15141-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The completion of four-lane divided sections in the gap segments of Trunk Highway 60 in Cottonwood and Wantonwan counties, Minnesota is proposed. Since the Highway 60 Record of Decision was released in 1984, several segments of the original preferred alternative between the cities of Worthington and St. James, Minnesota have been constructed as a four-lane divided highway. The past projects have involved capacity, safety, and mobility improvements. However, to date three highway segments between the cities of St. James and Windom were reconstructed only as two-lane roads. These three segments, totaling approximately 17 miles, are: the east gap, which extends 5.3 miles from just west of St. James to the eastern edge of Butterfield; the middle gap, which extends 4.2 miles from the western edge of Butterfield to just east of Mountain Lake; and the west gap, which extends 7.5 miles from just west of Mountain Lake to the northeast edge of Windom. This draft supplemental EIS considers a No Build Alternative (Alternative 1) and construction of a four-lane expressway in the east, middle, and west gaps (Alternative 2). The facility would be completed by constructing two lanes adjacent to the existing highway with 90 feet between centerlines. A design speed of 70 miles per hour (mph) would be used for the improvements and a 65 mph posted speed is anticipated to match the posted speeds on existing four-lane sections. Intersections are proposed to be at-grade with two-way stops on the intersecting local roads. Left and right turn lanes would be provided at all public roads. At nonpublic road median crossovers, left turn lanes would be constructed. Other improvements include minor reconstruction of cross street intersections and access/driveway modifications. Total construction and right of-way acquisition costs, estimated in year of construction dollars (2013 to 2018), are $23 million for the east gap, $16.8 million for the middle gap, and $18 to $20.6 million for the west gap. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued implementation of transportation system improvements in the corridor would provide a logical, safe, and predictable system for highway users and maintain mobility to address growing freight traffic. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way would require 385 to 421 acres and one to three commercial relocations. Approximately 320 to 350 acres of farmland would be converted and 6.2 to 7.9 acres of wetlands would be impacted. The build alternative could require water body modification at Clear Lake (0.2 to 1.2 acres) and Warren Pond (0.3 acres).Three receptors are anticipated to experience noise levels above local daytime standards, while the number of potential exceedances for nighttime standards is 23 to 33 receptors. Twenty-two contaminated sites have been identified in the project area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110384, 162 pages and maps, Original EIS and ROD--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota 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/918922923?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+ST.+JAMES+TO+WINDOM%2C+COTTONWOOD+AND+WATONWAN+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1983%29.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+ST.+JAMES+TO+WINDOM%2C+COTTONWOOD+AND+WATONWAN+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1983%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 - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. [Part 24 of 35] T2 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 918922888; 15144-7_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918922888?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. [Part 18 of 35] T2 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 918921545; 15144-7_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918921545?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. [Part 23 of 35] T2 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 918921510; 15144-7_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918921510?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. [Part 22 of 35] T2 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 918921478; 15144-7_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918921478?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. [Part 21 of 35] T2 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 918921452; 15144-7_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918921452?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. [Part 20 of 35] T2 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 918921418; 15144-7_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918921418?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. [Part 19 of 35] T2 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 918920470; 15144-7_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918920470?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. [Part 7 of 35] T2 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 918916382; 15144-7_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918916382?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. [Part 10 of 35] T2 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 918916091; 15144-7_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918916091?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. [Part 9 of 35] T2 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 918916082; 15144-7_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918916082?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. [Part 8 of 35] T2 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 918916060; 15144-7_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918916060?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 16 of 16] T2 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 918915992; 15142-5_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on Bangerter Highway between Interstate 15 (I-15) and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line at about 900 West in the City of Draper in Salt Lake County, Utah are proposed. Bangerter Highway is the main east-west road that serves the southern end of the Salt Lake Valley west of I-15 and provides an important link between I-15 and I-80. Designed to be a limited-access facility, Bangerter Highway currently has three travel lanes in each direction west of I-15 with a concrete median barrier separating the east and west travel lanes west of the signalized intersection at 200 West. The road is classified as a principal arterial and carries 39,000 cars per day. Traffic congestion levels are increasing due to the commercial growth in the 200 West area and residential growth in the suburban communities. Projected traffic backups at the exit ramp for I-15 southbound to Bangerter Highway westbound and at the I-15/Bangerter Highway interchange indicate an increased risk of accidents in 2030. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The action alternatives include a new right-turn lane from the I-15 southbound off ramps to Bangerter Highway, an additional westbound travel lane on Bangerter Highway from 200 West to a new 600 West interchange, a new grade-separated interchange on Bangerter Highway at 600 West, and two new five-lane arterial roads connecting the new 600 West interchange to 200 West. Alternative 4E would involve construction of the interchange at 600 West and Bangerter Highway and elimination of the signalized intersection at 200 West. No access between 200 West and Bangerter Highway would be provided. Under Alternative 4F, the interchange at 600 West and Bangerter Highway would be constructed, the traffic signals at the 200 West and Bangerter Highway intersection would be eliminated, and right turns only from 200 West would be allowed. Alternative 4G would maintain the traffic signal at the 200 West and Bangerter Highway intersection and allow only right turns to and from 200 West, as well as north-south and east-west through movements. The 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4F) is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would help meet the projected travel demand in 2030. Converting existing signalized intersections to grade-separated interchanges would reduce congestion and the risk of accidents. Maintaining right turns at the 200 West intersection would reduce negative impacts to local businesses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the interchange and connecting roads could result in the loss of 0.04 acre of wetlands, disturbance of some migratory bird nesting habitat, and temporary disruption of utility services to local residents and businesses. Depending on the final design, partial or complete acquisition of a state surplus building could be required. In addition, there would be a partial acquisition of a parking area and of undeveloped private land. Loss of the signal at 200 West and the elimination of the left-turn lane could impact retail businesses located at the intersection. 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: 110385, 670 pages and maps, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-11-01-F KW - Highways KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Utah 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/918915992?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BANGERTER+600+WEST+PROJECT%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=BANGERTER+600+WEST+PROJECT%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 15 of 16] T2 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 918915985; 15142-5_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on Bangerter Highway between Interstate 15 (I-15) and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line at about 900 West in the City of Draper in Salt Lake County, Utah are proposed. Bangerter Highway is the main east-west road that serves the southern end of the Salt Lake Valley west of I-15 and provides an important link between I-15 and I-80. Designed to be a limited-access facility, Bangerter Highway currently has three travel lanes in each direction west of I-15 with a concrete median barrier separating the east and west travel lanes west of the signalized intersection at 200 West. The road is classified as a principal arterial and carries 39,000 cars per day. Traffic congestion levels are increasing due to the commercial growth in the 200 West area and residential growth in the suburban communities. Projected traffic backups at the exit ramp for I-15 southbound to Bangerter Highway westbound and at the I-15/Bangerter Highway interchange indicate an increased risk of accidents in 2030. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The action alternatives include a new right-turn lane from the I-15 southbound off ramps to Bangerter Highway, an additional westbound travel lane on Bangerter Highway from 200 West to a new 600 West interchange, a new grade-separated interchange on Bangerter Highway at 600 West, and two new five-lane arterial roads connecting the new 600 West interchange to 200 West. Alternative 4E would involve construction of the interchange at 600 West and Bangerter Highway and elimination of the signalized intersection at 200 West. No access between 200 West and Bangerter Highway would be provided. Under Alternative 4F, the interchange at 600 West and Bangerter Highway would be constructed, the traffic signals at the 200 West and Bangerter Highway intersection would be eliminated, and right turns only from 200 West would be allowed. Alternative 4G would maintain the traffic signal at the 200 West and Bangerter Highway intersection and allow only right turns to and from 200 West, as well as north-south and east-west through movements. The 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4F) is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would help meet the projected travel demand in 2030. Converting existing signalized intersections to grade-separated interchanges would reduce congestion and the risk of accidents. Maintaining right turns at the 200 West intersection would reduce negative impacts to local businesses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the interchange and connecting roads could result in the loss of 0.04 acre of wetlands, disturbance of some migratory bird nesting habitat, and temporary disruption of utility services to local residents and businesses. Depending on the final design, partial or complete acquisition of a state surplus building could be required. In addition, there would be a partial acquisition of a parking area and of undeveloped private land. Loss of the signal at 200 West and the elimination of the left-turn lane could impact retail businesses located at the intersection. 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: 110385, 670 pages and maps, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-11-01-F KW - Highways KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Utah 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/918915985?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BANGERTER+600+WEST+PROJECT%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=BANGERTER+600+WEST+PROJECT%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 14 of 16] T2 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 918915974; 15142-5_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on Bangerter Highway between Interstate 15 (I-15) and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line at about 900 West in the City of Draper in Salt Lake County, Utah are proposed. Bangerter Highway is the main east-west road that serves the southern end of the Salt Lake Valley west of I-15 and provides an important link between I-15 and I-80. Designed to be a limited-access facility, Bangerter Highway currently has three travel lanes in each direction west of I-15 with a concrete median barrier separating the east and west travel lanes west of the signalized intersection at 200 West. The road is classified as a principal arterial and carries 39,000 cars per day. Traffic congestion levels are increasing due to the commercial growth in the 200 West area and residential growth in the suburban communities. Projected traffic backups at the exit ramp for I-15 southbound to Bangerter Highway westbound and at the I-15/Bangerter Highway interchange indicate an increased risk of accidents in 2030. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The action alternatives include a new right-turn lane from the I-15 southbound off ramps to Bangerter Highway, an additional westbound travel lane on Bangerter Highway from 200 West to a new 600 West interchange, a new grade-separated interchange on Bangerter Highway at 600 West, and two new five-lane arterial roads connecting the new 600 West interchange to 200 West. Alternative 4E would involve construction of the interchange at 600 West and Bangerter Highway and elimination of the signalized intersection at 200 West. No access between 200 West and Bangerter Highway would be provided. Under Alternative 4F, the interchange at 600 West and Bangerter Highway would be constructed, the traffic signals at the 200 West and Bangerter Highway intersection would be eliminated, and right turns only from 200 West would be allowed. Alternative 4G would maintain the traffic signal at the 200 West and Bangerter Highway intersection and allow only right turns to and from 200 West, as well as north-south and east-west through movements. The 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4F) is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would help meet the projected travel demand in 2030. Converting existing signalized intersections to grade-separated interchanges would reduce congestion and the risk of accidents. Maintaining right turns at the 200 West intersection would reduce negative impacts to local businesses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the interchange and connecting roads could result in the loss of 0.04 acre of wetlands, disturbance of some migratory bird nesting habitat, and temporary disruption of utility services to local residents and businesses. Depending on the final design, partial or complete acquisition of a state surplus building could be required. In addition, there would be a partial acquisition of a parking area and of undeveloped private land. Loss of the signal at 200 West and the elimination of the left-turn lane could impact retail businesses located at the intersection. 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: 110385, 670 pages and maps, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-11-01-F KW - Highways KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Utah 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/918915974?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BANGERTER+600+WEST+PROJECT%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=BANGERTER+600+WEST+PROJECT%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 13 of 16] T2 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 918915965; 15142-5_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on Bangerter Highway between Interstate 15 (I-15) and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line at about 900 West in the City of Draper in Salt Lake County, Utah are proposed. Bangerter Highway is the main east-west road that serves the southern end of the Salt Lake Valley west of I-15 and provides an important link between I-15 and I-80. Designed to be a limited-access facility, Bangerter Highway currently has three travel lanes in each direction west of I-15 with a concrete median barrier separating the east and west travel lanes west of the signalized intersection at 200 West. The road is classified as a principal arterial and carries 39,000 cars per day. Traffic congestion levels are increasing due to the commercial growth in the 200 West area and residential growth in the suburban communities. Projected traffic backups at the exit ramp for I-15 southbound to Bangerter Highway westbound and at the I-15/Bangerter Highway interchange indicate an increased risk of accidents in 2030. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The action alternatives include a new right-turn lane from the I-15 southbound off ramps to Bangerter Highway, an additional westbound travel lane on Bangerter Highway from 200 West to a new 600 West interchange, a new grade-separated interchange on Bangerter Highway at 600 West, and two new five-lane arterial roads connecting the new 600 West interchange to 200 West. Alternative 4E would involve construction of the interchange at 600 West and Bangerter Highway and elimination of the signalized intersection at 200 West. No access between 200 West and Bangerter Highway would be provided. Under Alternative 4F, the interchange at 600 West and Bangerter Highway would be constructed, the traffic signals at the 200 West and Bangerter Highway intersection would be eliminated, and right turns only from 200 West would be allowed. Alternative 4G would maintain the traffic signal at the 200 West and Bangerter Highway intersection and allow only right turns to and from 200 West, as well as north-south and east-west through movements. The 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4F) is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would help meet the projected travel demand in 2030. Converting existing signalized intersections to grade-separated interchanges would reduce congestion and the risk of accidents. Maintaining right turns at the 200 West intersection would reduce negative impacts to local businesses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the interchange and connecting roads could result in the loss of 0.04 acre of wetlands, disturbance of some migratory bird nesting habitat, and temporary disruption of utility services to local residents and businesses. Depending on the final design, partial or complete acquisition of a state surplus building could be required. In addition, there would be a partial acquisition of a parking area and of undeveloped private land. Loss of the signal at 200 West and the elimination of the left-turn lane could impact retail businesses located at the intersection. 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: 110385, 670 pages and maps, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-11-01-F KW - Highways KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Utah 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/918915965?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BANGERTER+600+WEST+PROJECT%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=BANGERTER+600+WEST+PROJECT%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. [Part 17 of 35] T2 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 918915956; 15144-7_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918915956?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 12 of 16] T2 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 918915953; 15142-5_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on Bangerter Highway between Interstate 15 (I-15) and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line at about 900 West in the City of Draper in Salt Lake County, Utah are proposed. Bangerter Highway is the main east-west road that serves the southern end of the Salt Lake Valley west of I-15 and provides an important link between I-15 and I-80. Designed to be a limited-access facility, Bangerter Highway currently has three travel lanes in each direction west of I-15 with a concrete median barrier separating the east and west travel lanes west of the signalized intersection at 200 West. The road is classified as a principal arterial and carries 39,000 cars per day. Traffic congestion levels are increasing due to the commercial growth in the 200 West area and residential growth in the suburban communities. Projected traffic backups at the exit ramp for I-15 southbound to Bangerter Highway westbound and at the I-15/Bangerter Highway interchange indicate an increased risk of accidents in 2030. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The action alternatives include a new right-turn lane from the I-15 southbound off ramps to Bangerter Highway, an additional westbound travel lane on Bangerter Highway from 200 West to a new 600 West interchange, a new grade-separated interchange on Bangerter Highway at 600 West, and two new five-lane arterial roads connecting the new 600 West interchange to 200 West. Alternative 4E would involve construction of the interchange at 600 West and Bangerter Highway and elimination of the signalized intersection at 200 West. No access between 200 West and Bangerter Highway would be provided. Under Alternative 4F, the interchange at 600 West and Bangerter Highway would be constructed, the traffic signals at the 200 West and Bangerter Highway intersection would be eliminated, and right turns only from 200 West would be allowed. Alternative 4G would maintain the traffic signal at the 200 West and Bangerter Highway intersection and allow only right turns to and from 200 West, as well as north-south and east-west through movements. The 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4F) is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would help meet the projected travel demand in 2030. Converting existing signalized intersections to grade-separated interchanges would reduce congestion and the risk of accidents. Maintaining right turns at the 200 West intersection would reduce negative impacts to local businesses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the interchange and connecting roads could result in the loss of 0.04 acre of wetlands, disturbance of some migratory bird nesting habitat, and temporary disruption of utility services to local residents and businesses. Depending on the final design, partial or complete acquisition of a state surplus building could be required. In addition, there would be a partial acquisition of a parking area and of undeveloped private land. Loss of the signal at 200 West and the elimination of the left-turn lane could impact retail businesses located at the intersection. 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: 110385, 670 pages and maps, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-11-01-F KW - Highways KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Utah 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/918915953?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BANGERTER+600+WEST+PROJECT%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=BANGERTER+600+WEST+PROJECT%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 11 of 16] T2 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 918915947; 15142-5_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on Bangerter Highway between Interstate 15 (I-15) and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line at about 900 West in the City of Draper in Salt Lake County, Utah are proposed. Bangerter Highway is the main east-west road that serves the southern end of the Salt Lake Valley west of I-15 and provides an important link between I-15 and I-80. Designed to be a limited-access facility, Bangerter Highway currently has three travel lanes in each direction west of I-15 with a concrete median barrier separating the east and west travel lanes west of the signalized intersection at 200 West. The road is classified as a principal arterial and carries 39,000 cars per day. Traffic congestion levels are increasing due to the commercial growth in the 200 West area and residential growth in the suburban communities. Projected traffic backups at the exit ramp for I-15 southbound to Bangerter Highway westbound and at the I-15/Bangerter Highway interchange indicate an increased risk of accidents in 2030. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The action alternatives include a new right-turn lane from the I-15 southbound off ramps to Bangerter Highway, an additional westbound travel lane on Bangerter Highway from 200 West to a new 600 West interchange, a new grade-separated interchange on Bangerter Highway at 600 West, and two new five-lane arterial roads connecting the new 600 West interchange to 200 West. Alternative 4E would involve construction of the interchange at 600 West and Bangerter Highway and elimination of the signalized intersection at 200 West. No access between 200 West and Bangerter Highway would be provided. Under Alternative 4F, the interchange at 600 West and Bangerter Highway would be constructed, the traffic signals at the 200 West and Bangerter Highway intersection would be eliminated, and right turns only from 200 West would be allowed. Alternative 4G would maintain the traffic signal at the 200 West and Bangerter Highway intersection and allow only right turns to and from 200 West, as well as north-south and east-west through movements. The 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4F) is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would help meet the projected travel demand in 2030. Converting existing signalized intersections to grade-separated interchanges would reduce congestion and the risk of accidents. Maintaining right turns at the 200 West intersection would reduce negative impacts to local businesses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the interchange and connecting roads could result in the loss of 0.04 acre of wetlands, disturbance of some migratory bird nesting habitat, and temporary disruption of utility services to local residents and businesses. Depending on the final design, partial or complete acquisition of a state surplus building could be required. In addition, there would be a partial acquisition of a parking area and of undeveloped private land. Loss of the signal at 200 West and the elimination of the left-turn lane could impact retail businesses located at the intersection. 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: 110385, 670 pages and maps, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-11-01-F KW - Highways KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Utah 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/918915947?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BANGERTER+600+WEST+PROJECT%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=BANGERTER+600+WEST+PROJECT%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. [Part 16 of 35] T2 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 918915944; 15144-7_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918915944?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. [Part 13 of 35] T2 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 918915941; 15144-7_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918915941?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 10 of 16] T2 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 918915940; 15142-5_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on Bangerter Highway between Interstate 15 (I-15) and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line at about 900 West in the City of Draper in Salt Lake County, Utah are proposed. Bangerter Highway is the main east-west road that serves the southern end of the Salt Lake Valley west of I-15 and provides an important link between I-15 and I-80. Designed to be a limited-access facility, Bangerter Highway currently has three travel lanes in each direction west of I-15 with a concrete median barrier separating the east and west travel lanes west of the signalized intersection at 200 West. The road is classified as a principal arterial and carries 39,000 cars per day. Traffic congestion levels are increasing due to the commercial growth in the 200 West area and residential growth in the suburban communities. Projected traffic backups at the exit ramp for I-15 southbound to Bangerter Highway westbound and at the I-15/Bangerter Highway interchange indicate an increased risk of accidents in 2030. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The action alternatives include a new right-turn lane from the I-15 southbound off ramps to Bangerter Highway, an additional westbound travel lane on Bangerter Highway from 200 West to a new 600 West interchange, a new grade-separated interchange on Bangerter Highway at 600 West, and two new five-lane arterial roads connecting the new 600 West interchange to 200 West. Alternative 4E would involve construction of the interchange at 600 West and Bangerter Highway and elimination of the signalized intersection at 200 West. No access between 200 West and Bangerter Highway would be provided. Under Alternative 4F, the interchange at 600 West and Bangerter Highway would be constructed, the traffic signals at the 200 West and Bangerter Highway intersection would be eliminated, and right turns only from 200 West would be allowed. Alternative 4G would maintain the traffic signal at the 200 West and Bangerter Highway intersection and allow only right turns to and from 200 West, as well as north-south and east-west through movements. The 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4F) is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would help meet the projected travel demand in 2030. Converting existing signalized intersections to grade-separated interchanges would reduce congestion and the risk of accidents. Maintaining right turns at the 200 West intersection would reduce negative impacts to local businesses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the interchange and connecting roads could result in the loss of 0.04 acre of wetlands, disturbance of some migratory bird nesting habitat, and temporary disruption of utility services to local residents and businesses. Depending on the final design, partial or complete acquisition of a state surplus building could be required. In addition, there would be a partial acquisition of a parking area and of undeveloped private land. Loss of the signal at 200 West and the elimination of the left-turn lane could impact retail businesses located at the intersection. 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: 110385, 670 pages and maps, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-11-01-F KW - Highways KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Utah 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/918915940?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BANGERTER+600+WEST+PROJECT%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=BANGERTER+600+WEST+PROJECT%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 9 of 16] T2 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 918915937; 15142-5_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on Bangerter Highway between Interstate 15 (I-15) and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line at about 900 West in the City of Draper in Salt Lake County, Utah are proposed. Bangerter Highway is the main east-west road that serves the southern end of the Salt Lake Valley west of I-15 and provides an important link between I-15 and I-80. Designed to be a limited-access facility, Bangerter Highway currently has three travel lanes in each direction west of I-15 with a concrete median barrier separating the east and west travel lanes west of the signalized intersection at 200 West. The road is classified as a principal arterial and carries 39,000 cars per day. Traffic congestion levels are increasing due to the commercial growth in the 200 West area and residential growth in the suburban communities. Projected traffic backups at the exit ramp for I-15 southbound to Bangerter Highway westbound and at the I-15/Bangerter Highway interchange indicate an increased risk of accidents in 2030. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The action alternatives include a new right-turn lane from the I-15 southbound off ramps to Bangerter Highway, an additional westbound travel lane on Bangerter Highway from 200 West to a new 600 West interchange, a new grade-separated interchange on Bangerter Highway at 600 West, and two new five-lane arterial roads connecting the new 600 West interchange to 200 West. Alternative 4E would involve construction of the interchange at 600 West and Bangerter Highway and elimination of the signalized intersection at 200 West. No access between 200 West and Bangerter Highway would be provided. Under Alternative 4F, the interchange at 600 West and Bangerter Highway would be constructed, the traffic signals at the 200 West and Bangerter Highway intersection would be eliminated, and right turns only from 200 West would be allowed. Alternative 4G would maintain the traffic signal at the 200 West and Bangerter Highway intersection and allow only right turns to and from 200 West, as well as north-south and east-west through movements. The 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4F) is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would help meet the projected travel demand in 2030. Converting existing signalized intersections to grade-separated interchanges would reduce congestion and the risk of accidents. Maintaining right turns at the 200 West intersection would reduce negative impacts to local businesses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the interchange and connecting roads could result in the loss of 0.04 acre of wetlands, disturbance of some migratory bird nesting habitat, and temporary disruption of utility services to local residents and businesses. Depending on the final design, partial or complete acquisition of a state surplus building could be required. In addition, there would be a partial acquisition of a parking area and of undeveloped private land. Loss of the signal at 200 West and the elimination of the left-turn lane could impact retail businesses located at the intersection. 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: 110385, 670 pages and maps, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-11-01-F KW - Highways KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Utah 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/918915937?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BANGERTER+600+WEST+PROJECT%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=BANGERTER+600+WEST+PROJECT%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. [Part 5 of 35] T2 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 918915935; 15144-7_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918915935?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. [Part 12 of 35] T2 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 918915934; 15144-7_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918915934?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 8 of 16] T2 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 918915932; 15142-5_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on Bangerter Highway between Interstate 15 (I-15) and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line at about 900 West in the City of Draper in Salt Lake County, Utah are proposed. Bangerter Highway is the main east-west road that serves the southern end of the Salt Lake Valley west of I-15 and provides an important link between I-15 and I-80. Designed to be a limited-access facility, Bangerter Highway currently has three travel lanes in each direction west of I-15 with a concrete median barrier separating the east and west travel lanes west of the signalized intersection at 200 West. The road is classified as a principal arterial and carries 39,000 cars per day. Traffic congestion levels are increasing due to the commercial growth in the 200 West area and residential growth in the suburban communities. Projected traffic backups at the exit ramp for I-15 southbound to Bangerter Highway westbound and at the I-15/Bangerter Highway interchange indicate an increased risk of accidents in 2030. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The action alternatives include a new right-turn lane from the I-15 southbound off ramps to Bangerter Highway, an additional westbound travel lane on Bangerter Highway from 200 West to a new 600 West interchange, a new grade-separated interchange on Bangerter Highway at 600 West, and two new five-lane arterial roads connecting the new 600 West interchange to 200 West. Alternative 4E would involve construction of the interchange at 600 West and Bangerter Highway and elimination of the signalized intersection at 200 West. No access between 200 West and Bangerter Highway would be provided. Under Alternative 4F, the interchange at 600 West and Bangerter Highway would be constructed, the traffic signals at the 200 West and Bangerter Highway intersection would be eliminated, and right turns only from 200 West would be allowed. Alternative 4G would maintain the traffic signal at the 200 West and Bangerter Highway intersection and allow only right turns to and from 200 West, as well as north-south and east-west through movements. The 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4F) is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would help meet the projected travel demand in 2030. Converting existing signalized intersections to grade-separated interchanges would reduce congestion and the risk of accidents. Maintaining right turns at the 200 West intersection would reduce negative impacts to local businesses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the interchange and connecting roads could result in the loss of 0.04 acre of wetlands, disturbance of some migratory bird nesting habitat, and temporary disruption of utility services to local residents and businesses. Depending on the final design, partial or complete acquisition of a state surplus building could be required. In addition, there would be a partial acquisition of a parking area and of undeveloped private land. Loss of the signal at 200 West and the elimination of the left-turn lane could impact retail businesses located at the intersection. 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: 110385, 670 pages and maps, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-11-01-F KW - Highways KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Utah 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/918915932?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BANGERTER+600+WEST+PROJECT%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=BANGERTER+600+WEST+PROJECT%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 7 of 16] T2 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 918915930; 15142-5_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on Bangerter Highway between Interstate 15 (I-15) and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line at about 900 West in the City of Draper in Salt Lake County, Utah are proposed. Bangerter Highway is the main east-west road that serves the southern end of the Salt Lake Valley west of I-15 and provides an important link between I-15 and I-80. Designed to be a limited-access facility, Bangerter Highway currently has three travel lanes in each direction west of I-15 with a concrete median barrier separating the east and west travel lanes west of the signalized intersection at 200 West. The road is classified as a principal arterial and carries 39,000 cars per day. Traffic congestion levels are increasing due to the commercial growth in the 200 West area and residential growth in the suburban communities. Projected traffic backups at the exit ramp for I-15 southbound to Bangerter Highway westbound and at the I-15/Bangerter Highway interchange indicate an increased risk of accidents in 2030. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The action alternatives include a new right-turn lane from the I-15 southbound off ramps to Bangerter Highway, an additional westbound travel lane on Bangerter Highway from 200 West to a new 600 West interchange, a new grade-separated interchange on Bangerter Highway at 600 West, and two new five-lane arterial roads connecting the new 600 West interchange to 200 West. Alternative 4E would involve construction of the interchange at 600 West and Bangerter Highway and elimination of the signalized intersection at 200 West. No access between 200 West and Bangerter Highway would be provided. Under Alternative 4F, the interchange at 600 West and Bangerter Highway would be constructed, the traffic signals at the 200 West and Bangerter Highway intersection would be eliminated, and right turns only from 200 West would be allowed. Alternative 4G would maintain the traffic signal at the 200 West and Bangerter Highway intersection and allow only right turns to and from 200 West, as well as north-south and east-west through movements. The 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4F) is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would help meet the projected travel demand in 2030. Converting existing signalized intersections to grade-separated interchanges would reduce congestion and the risk of accidents. Maintaining right turns at the 200 West intersection would reduce negative impacts to local businesses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the interchange and connecting roads could result in the loss of 0.04 acre of wetlands, disturbance of some migratory bird nesting habitat, and temporary disruption of utility services to local residents and businesses. Depending on the final design, partial or complete acquisition of a state surplus building could be required. In addition, there would be a partial acquisition of a parking area and of undeveloped private land. Loss of the signal at 200 West and the elimination of the left-turn lane could impact retail businesses located at the intersection. 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: 110385, 670 pages and maps, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-11-01-F KW - Highways KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Utah 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/918915930?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BANGERTER+600+WEST+PROJECT%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=BANGERTER+600+WEST+PROJECT%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. [Part 11 of 35] T2 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 918915928; 15144-7_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918915928?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 6 of 16] T2 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 918915925; 15142-5_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on Bangerter Highway between Interstate 15 (I-15) and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line at about 900 West in the City of Draper in Salt Lake County, Utah are proposed. Bangerter Highway is the main east-west road that serves the southern end of the Salt Lake Valley west of I-15 and provides an important link between I-15 and I-80. Designed to be a limited-access facility, Bangerter Highway currently has three travel lanes in each direction west of I-15 with a concrete median barrier separating the east and west travel lanes west of the signalized intersection at 200 West. The road is classified as a principal arterial and carries 39,000 cars per day. Traffic congestion levels are increasing due to the commercial growth in the 200 West area and residential growth in the suburban communities. Projected traffic backups at the exit ramp for I-15 southbound to Bangerter Highway westbound and at the I-15/Bangerter Highway interchange indicate an increased risk of accidents in 2030. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The action alternatives include a new right-turn lane from the I-15 southbound off ramps to Bangerter Highway, an additional westbound travel lane on Bangerter Highway from 200 West to a new 600 West interchange, a new grade-separated interchange on Bangerter Highway at 600 West, and two new five-lane arterial roads connecting the new 600 West interchange to 200 West. Alternative 4E would involve construction of the interchange at 600 West and Bangerter Highway and elimination of the signalized intersection at 200 West. No access between 200 West and Bangerter Highway would be provided. Under Alternative 4F, the interchange at 600 West and Bangerter Highway would be constructed, the traffic signals at the 200 West and Bangerter Highway intersection would be eliminated, and right turns only from 200 West would be allowed. Alternative 4G would maintain the traffic signal at the 200 West and Bangerter Highway intersection and allow only right turns to and from 200 West, as well as north-south and east-west through movements. The 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4F) is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would help meet the projected travel demand in 2030. Converting existing signalized intersections to grade-separated interchanges would reduce congestion and the risk of accidents. Maintaining right turns at the 200 West intersection would reduce negative impacts to local businesses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the interchange and connecting roads could result in the loss of 0.04 acre of wetlands, disturbance of some migratory bird nesting habitat, and temporary disruption of utility services to local residents and businesses. Depending on the final design, partial or complete acquisition of a state surplus building could be required. In addition, there would be a partial acquisition of a parking area and of undeveloped private land. Loss of the signal at 200 West and the elimination of the left-turn lane could impact retail businesses located at the intersection. 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: 110385, 670 pages and maps, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-11-01-F KW - Highways KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Utah 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/918915925?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BANGERTER+600+WEST+PROJECT%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=BANGERTER+600+WEST+PROJECT%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. [Part 4 of 35] T2 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 918915922; 15144-7_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918915922?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 5 of 16] T2 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 918915905; 15142-5_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on Bangerter Highway between Interstate 15 (I-15) and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line at about 900 West in the City of Draper in Salt Lake County, Utah are proposed. Bangerter Highway is the main east-west road that serves the southern end of the Salt Lake Valley west of I-15 and provides an important link between I-15 and I-80. Designed to be a limited-access facility, Bangerter Highway currently has three travel lanes in each direction west of I-15 with a concrete median barrier separating the east and west travel lanes west of the signalized intersection at 200 West. The road is classified as a principal arterial and carries 39,000 cars per day. Traffic congestion levels are increasing due to the commercial growth in the 200 West area and residential growth in the suburban communities. Projected traffic backups at the exit ramp for I-15 southbound to Bangerter Highway westbound and at the I-15/Bangerter Highway interchange indicate an increased risk of accidents in 2030. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The action alternatives include a new right-turn lane from the I-15 southbound off ramps to Bangerter Highway, an additional westbound travel lane on Bangerter Highway from 200 West to a new 600 West interchange, a new grade-separated interchange on Bangerter Highway at 600 West, and two new five-lane arterial roads connecting the new 600 West interchange to 200 West. Alternative 4E would involve construction of the interchange at 600 West and Bangerter Highway and elimination of the signalized intersection at 200 West. No access between 200 West and Bangerter Highway would be provided. Under Alternative 4F, the interchange at 600 West and Bangerter Highway would be constructed, the traffic signals at the 200 West and Bangerter Highway intersection would be eliminated, and right turns only from 200 West would be allowed. Alternative 4G would maintain the traffic signal at the 200 West and Bangerter Highway intersection and allow only right turns to and from 200 West, as well as north-south and east-west through movements. The 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4F) is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would help meet the projected travel demand in 2030. Converting existing signalized intersections to grade-separated interchanges would reduce congestion and the risk of accidents. Maintaining right turns at the 200 West intersection would reduce negative impacts to local businesses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the interchange and connecting roads could result in the loss of 0.04 acre of wetlands, disturbance of some migratory bird nesting habitat, and temporary disruption of utility services to local residents and businesses. Depending on the final design, partial or complete acquisition of a state surplus building could be required. In addition, there would be a partial acquisition of a parking area and of undeveloped private land. Loss of the signal at 200 West and the elimination of the left-turn lane could impact retail businesses located at the intersection. 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: 110385, 670 pages and maps, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-11-01-F KW - Highways KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Utah 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/918915905?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BANGERTER+600+WEST+PROJECT%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=BANGERTER+600+WEST+PROJECT%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. [Part 3 of 35] T2 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 918915514; 15144-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918915514?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. [Part 2 of 35] T2 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 918915513; 15144-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918915513?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. [Part 1 of 35] T2 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 918915512; 15144-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918915512?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 4 of 16] T2 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 918915420; 15142-5_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on Bangerter Highway between Interstate 15 (I-15) and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line at about 900 West in the City of Draper in Salt Lake County, Utah are proposed. Bangerter Highway is the main east-west road that serves the southern end of the Salt Lake Valley west of I-15 and provides an important link between I-15 and I-80. Designed to be a limited-access facility, Bangerter Highway currently has three travel lanes in each direction west of I-15 with a concrete median barrier separating the east and west travel lanes west of the signalized intersection at 200 West. The road is classified as a principal arterial and carries 39,000 cars per day. Traffic congestion levels are increasing due to the commercial growth in the 200 West area and residential growth in the suburban communities. Projected traffic backups at the exit ramp for I-15 southbound to Bangerter Highway westbound and at the I-15/Bangerter Highway interchange indicate an increased risk of accidents in 2030. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The action alternatives include a new right-turn lane from the I-15 southbound off ramps to Bangerter Highway, an additional westbound travel lane on Bangerter Highway from 200 West to a new 600 West interchange, a new grade-separated interchange on Bangerter Highway at 600 West, and two new five-lane arterial roads connecting the new 600 West interchange to 200 West. Alternative 4E would involve construction of the interchange at 600 West and Bangerter Highway and elimination of the signalized intersection at 200 West. No access between 200 West and Bangerter Highway would be provided. Under Alternative 4F, the interchange at 600 West and Bangerter Highway would be constructed, the traffic signals at the 200 West and Bangerter Highway intersection would be eliminated, and right turns only from 200 West would be allowed. Alternative 4G would maintain the traffic signal at the 200 West and Bangerter Highway intersection and allow only right turns to and from 200 West, as well as north-south and east-west through movements. The 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4F) is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would help meet the projected travel demand in 2030. Converting existing signalized intersections to grade-separated interchanges would reduce congestion and the risk of accidents. Maintaining right turns at the 200 West intersection would reduce negative impacts to local businesses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the interchange and connecting roads could result in the loss of 0.04 acre of wetlands, disturbance of some migratory bird nesting habitat, and temporary disruption of utility services to local residents and businesses. Depending on the final design, partial or complete acquisition of a state surplus building could be required. In addition, there would be a partial acquisition of a parking area and of undeveloped private land. Loss of the signal at 200 West and the elimination of the left-turn lane could impact retail businesses located at the intersection. 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: 110385, 670 pages and maps, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-11-01-F KW - Highways KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Utah 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/918915420?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BANGERTER+600+WEST+PROJECT%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=BANGERTER+600+WEST+PROJECT%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 3 of 16] T2 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 918915419; 15142-5_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on Bangerter Highway between Interstate 15 (I-15) and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line at about 900 West in the City of Draper in Salt Lake County, Utah are proposed. Bangerter Highway is the main east-west road that serves the southern end of the Salt Lake Valley west of I-15 and provides an important link between I-15 and I-80. Designed to be a limited-access facility, Bangerter Highway currently has three travel lanes in each direction west of I-15 with a concrete median barrier separating the east and west travel lanes west of the signalized intersection at 200 West. The road is classified as a principal arterial and carries 39,000 cars per day. Traffic congestion levels are increasing due to the commercial growth in the 200 West area and residential growth in the suburban communities. Projected traffic backups at the exit ramp for I-15 southbound to Bangerter Highway westbound and at the I-15/Bangerter Highway interchange indicate an increased risk of accidents in 2030. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The action alternatives include a new right-turn lane from the I-15 southbound off ramps to Bangerter Highway, an additional westbound travel lane on Bangerter Highway from 200 West to a new 600 West interchange, a new grade-separated interchange on Bangerter Highway at 600 West, and two new five-lane arterial roads connecting the new 600 West interchange to 200 West. Alternative 4E would involve construction of the interchange at 600 West and Bangerter Highway and elimination of the signalized intersection at 200 West. No access between 200 West and Bangerter Highway would be provided. Under Alternative 4F, the interchange at 600 West and Bangerter Highway would be constructed, the traffic signals at the 200 West and Bangerter Highway intersection would be eliminated, and right turns only from 200 West would be allowed. Alternative 4G would maintain the traffic signal at the 200 West and Bangerter Highway intersection and allow only right turns to and from 200 West, as well as north-south and east-west through movements. The 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4F) is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would help meet the projected travel demand in 2030. Converting existing signalized intersections to grade-separated interchanges would reduce congestion and the risk of accidents. Maintaining right turns at the 200 West intersection would reduce negative impacts to local businesses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the interchange and connecting roads could result in the loss of 0.04 acre of wetlands, disturbance of some migratory bird nesting habitat, and temporary disruption of utility services to local residents and businesses. Depending on the final design, partial or complete acquisition of a state surplus building could be required. In addition, there would be a partial acquisition of a parking area and of undeveloped private land. Loss of the signal at 200 West and the elimination of the left-turn lane could impact retail businesses located at the intersection. 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: 110385, 670 pages and maps, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-11-01-F KW - Highways KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Utah 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/918915419?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BANGERTER+600+WEST+PROJECT%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=BANGERTER+600+WEST+PROJECT%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 2 of 16] T2 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 918915418; 15142-5_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on Bangerter Highway between Interstate 15 (I-15) and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line at about 900 West in the City of Draper in Salt Lake County, Utah are proposed. Bangerter Highway is the main east-west road that serves the southern end of the Salt Lake Valley west of I-15 and provides an important link between I-15 and I-80. Designed to be a limited-access facility, Bangerter Highway currently has three travel lanes in each direction west of I-15 with a concrete median barrier separating the east and west travel lanes west of the signalized intersection at 200 West. The road is classified as a principal arterial and carries 39,000 cars per day. Traffic congestion levels are increasing due to the commercial growth in the 200 West area and residential growth in the suburban communities. Projected traffic backups at the exit ramp for I-15 southbound to Bangerter Highway westbound and at the I-15/Bangerter Highway interchange indicate an increased risk of accidents in 2030. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The action alternatives include a new right-turn lane from the I-15 southbound off ramps to Bangerter Highway, an additional westbound travel lane on Bangerter Highway from 200 West to a new 600 West interchange, a new grade-separated interchange on Bangerter Highway at 600 West, and two new five-lane arterial roads connecting the new 600 West interchange to 200 West. Alternative 4E would involve construction of the interchange at 600 West and Bangerter Highway and elimination of the signalized intersection at 200 West. No access between 200 West and Bangerter Highway would be provided. Under Alternative 4F, the interchange at 600 West and Bangerter Highway would be constructed, the traffic signals at the 200 West and Bangerter Highway intersection would be eliminated, and right turns only from 200 West would be allowed. Alternative 4G would maintain the traffic signal at the 200 West and Bangerter Highway intersection and allow only right turns to and from 200 West, as well as north-south and east-west through movements. The 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4F) is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would help meet the projected travel demand in 2030. Converting existing signalized intersections to grade-separated interchanges would reduce congestion and the risk of accidents. Maintaining right turns at the 200 West intersection would reduce negative impacts to local businesses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the interchange and connecting roads could result in the loss of 0.04 acre of wetlands, disturbance of some migratory bird nesting habitat, and temporary disruption of utility services to local residents and businesses. Depending on the final design, partial or complete acquisition of a state surplus building could be required. In addition, there would be a partial acquisition of a parking area and of undeveloped private land. Loss of the signal at 200 West and the elimination of the left-turn lane could impact retail businesses located at the intersection. 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: 110385, 670 pages and maps, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-11-01-F KW - Highways KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Utah 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/918915418?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BANGERTER+600+WEST+PROJECT%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=BANGERTER+600+WEST+PROJECT%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 1 of 16] T2 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 918915417; 15142-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on Bangerter Highway between Interstate 15 (I-15) and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line at about 900 West in the City of Draper in Salt Lake County, Utah are proposed. Bangerter Highway is the main east-west road that serves the southern end of the Salt Lake Valley west of I-15 and provides an important link between I-15 and I-80. Designed to be a limited-access facility, Bangerter Highway currently has three travel lanes in each direction west of I-15 with a concrete median barrier separating the east and west travel lanes west of the signalized intersection at 200 West. The road is classified as a principal arterial and carries 39,000 cars per day. Traffic congestion levels are increasing due to the commercial growth in the 200 West area and residential growth in the suburban communities. Projected traffic backups at the exit ramp for I-15 southbound to Bangerter Highway westbound and at the I-15/Bangerter Highway interchange indicate an increased risk of accidents in 2030. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The action alternatives include a new right-turn lane from the I-15 southbound off ramps to Bangerter Highway, an additional westbound travel lane on Bangerter Highway from 200 West to a new 600 West interchange, a new grade-separated interchange on Bangerter Highway at 600 West, and two new five-lane arterial roads connecting the new 600 West interchange to 200 West. Alternative 4E would involve construction of the interchange at 600 West and Bangerter Highway and elimination of the signalized intersection at 200 West. No access between 200 West and Bangerter Highway would be provided. Under Alternative 4F, the interchange at 600 West and Bangerter Highway would be constructed, the traffic signals at the 200 West and Bangerter Highway intersection would be eliminated, and right turns only from 200 West would be allowed. Alternative 4G would maintain the traffic signal at the 200 West and Bangerter Highway intersection and allow only right turns to and from 200 West, as well as north-south and east-west through movements. The 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4F) is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would help meet the projected travel demand in 2030. Converting existing signalized intersections to grade-separated interchanges would reduce congestion and the risk of accidents. Maintaining right turns at the 200 West intersection would reduce negative impacts to local businesses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the interchange and connecting roads could result in the loss of 0.04 acre of wetlands, disturbance of some migratory bird nesting habitat, and temporary disruption of utility services to local residents and businesses. Depending on the final design, partial or complete acquisition of a state surplus building could be required. In addition, there would be a partial acquisition of a parking area and of undeveloped private land. Loss of the signal at 200 West and the elimination of the left-turn lane could impact retail businesses located at the intersection. 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: 110385, 670 pages and maps, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-11-01-F KW - Highways KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Utah 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/918915417?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BANGERTER+600+WEST+PROJECT%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=BANGERTER+600+WEST+PROJECT%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT THOMSON PROJECT, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA. AN - 916835781; 15144 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization to construct industrial infrastructure and produce liquid hydrocarbon resources from the Thomson Sand Reservoir near Point Thomson, on the North Slope of Alaska is proposed. ExxonMobil and PTE Pipeline LLC submitted a permit application to discharge dredge and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and to construct structures in navigable waters of the U.S. for the Point Thomson Project. The project area is located 60 miles east of Deadhorse and 60 miles west of Kaktovik, on the coast of Lion Bay, and is defined to extend eastward from Deadhorse to the Staines River and from the lagoon side of Flaxman Island and the Maguire Islands along the Beaufort Sea coast south to approximately eight miles inland from the coast line. The area is dominated by permafrost, including vegetation and wildlife communities that occur in this harsh climate. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives consisting of a combination of well and hydrocarbon processing pad configurations. The central pad would be the largest pad in all the action alternatives and the primary location for construction, staging, drilling, processing fluids, and operational activities. Each action alternative would have a minimum of five wells capable of either extraction or injection. Additionally, one disposal well would be drilled at the central processing facility (CPF). Production and injection wells would be drilled using directional techniques to reach the reservoir, which is mostly offshore. The east and west pads would include well drilling to determine whether the rim of oil surrounding the gas reservoir would be viable for production. The gravel pads and airstrip would be connected by gravel roads or seasonal ice roads. Access to the CPF from Deadhorse would be by a combination of a seasonal ice road, seasonal barging, and/or all season gravel road. Each alternative would include a configuration of infield gathering lines to bring produced fluids from the well pads to the CPF. An export pipeline would transport natural gas condensate and/or crude oil to a common carrier export pipeline with a connection to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Prudhoe Bay. Alternative B is the proposed action and would use three coastal gravel pads, two of which would be expansions of existing gravel pads. This alternative would use marine transport for large facility modules. Alternative C would locate project components (four gravel pads) inland and construct a gravel access road between Point Thomson and the Endicott Spur Road in lieu of constructing a coastal barge facility. Alternative D would utilize the same four gravel pads as described in Alternative C, but a tundra ice road would run east from the Endicott Spur Road to the northern end of the project area. Under Alternative E, the gravel well pad footprints would be expanded by multiyear ice pads to support all the necessary equipment. Over the long term during operations, the ice pad footprint would be removed and only the gravel fill would remain. The gravel footprint would also be reduced by the use of ice roads in much of the infield road system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would produce up to 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and test and delineate other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas. Increased employment, income, and property values would benefit the North Shore Borough and Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel truck trips would produce fugitive dust and emissions. Construction would compact soils, degrade permafrost, directly impact to 205 to 740 acres of wetlands, and create between one and 50 stream crossings. Infrastructure would displace or alter 636 to 1,955 acres of bird habitat and 460 to 3,450 acres of terrestrial mammal habitat. The area of polar bear critical habitat disturbance would be greater than 20,000 acres. Impacts to polar bear movement, subsistence, recreation, wilderness perception, and research activities could affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The probability of a small or medium size spill occurring over the life of the project is relatively high. A very large spill from either a blowout or uncontrolled release or from a major berm failure would be likely to reach both land and adjacent water bodies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110387, Summary--46 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,456 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Aircraft KW - Barges KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Gravel KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mines KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916835781?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=POINT+THOMSON+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+SLOPE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jber, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 916835769; 15142 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on Bangerter Highway between Interstate 15 (I-15) and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line at about 900 West in the City of Draper in Salt Lake County, Utah are proposed. Bangerter Highway is the main east-west road that serves the southern end of the Salt Lake Valley west of I-15 and provides an important link between I-15 and I-80. Designed to be a limited-access facility, Bangerter Highway currently has three travel lanes in each direction west of I-15 with a concrete median barrier separating the east and west travel lanes west of the signalized intersection at 200 West. The road is classified as a principal arterial and carries 39,000 cars per day. Traffic congestion levels are increasing due to the commercial growth in the 200 West area and residential growth in the suburban communities. Projected traffic backups at the exit ramp for I-15 southbound to Bangerter Highway westbound and at the I-15/Bangerter Highway interchange indicate an increased risk of accidents in 2030. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The action alternatives include a new right-turn lane from the I-15 southbound off ramps to Bangerter Highway, an additional westbound travel lane on Bangerter Highway from 200 West to a new 600 West interchange, a new grade-separated interchange on Bangerter Highway at 600 West, and two new five-lane arterial roads connecting the new 600 West interchange to 200 West. Alternative 4E would involve construction of the interchange at 600 West and Bangerter Highway and elimination of the signalized intersection at 200 West. No access between 200 West and Bangerter Highway would be provided. Under Alternative 4F, the interchange at 600 West and Bangerter Highway would be constructed, the traffic signals at the 200 West and Bangerter Highway intersection would be eliminated, and right turns only from 200 West would be allowed. Alternative 4G would maintain the traffic signal at the 200 West and Bangerter Highway intersection and allow only right turns to and from 200 West, as well as north-south and east-west through movements. The 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4F) is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would help meet the projected travel demand in 2030. Converting existing signalized intersections to grade-separated interchanges would reduce congestion and the risk of accidents. Maintaining right turns at the 200 West intersection would reduce negative impacts to local businesses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the interchange and connecting roads could result in the loss of 0.04 acre of wetlands, disturbance of some migratory bird nesting habitat, and temporary disruption of utility services to local residents and businesses. Depending on the final design, partial or complete acquisition of a state surplus building could be required. In addition, there would be a partial acquisition of a parking area and of undeveloped private land. Loss of the signal at 200 West and the elimination of the left-turn lane could impact retail businesses located at the intersection. 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: 110385, 670 pages and maps, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-11-01-F KW - Highways KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Utah 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/916835769?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BANGERTER+600+WEST+PROJECT%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=BANGERTER+600+WEST+PROJECT%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, ST. JAMES TO WINDOM, COTTONWOOD AND WATONWAN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1983). AN - 916835768; 15141 AB - PURPOSE: The completion of four-lane divided sections in the gap segments of Trunk Highway 60 in Cottonwood and Wantonwan counties, Minnesota is proposed. Since the Highway 60 Record of Decision was released in 1984, several segments of the original preferred alternative between the cities of Worthington and St. James, Minnesota have been constructed as a four-lane divided highway. The past projects have involved capacity, safety, and mobility improvements. However, to date three highway segments between the cities of St. James and Windom were reconstructed only as two-lane roads. These three segments, totaling approximately 17 miles, are: the east gap, which extends 5.3 miles from just west of St. James to the eastern edge of Butterfield; the middle gap, which extends 4.2 miles from the western edge of Butterfield to just east of Mountain Lake; and the west gap, which extends 7.5 miles from just west of Mountain Lake to the northeast edge of Windom. This draft supplemental EIS considers a No Build Alternative (Alternative 1) and construction of a four-lane expressway in the east, middle, and west gaps (Alternative 2). The facility would be completed by constructing two lanes adjacent to the existing highway with 90 feet between centerlines. A design speed of 70 miles per hour (mph) would be used for the improvements and a 65 mph posted speed is anticipated to match the posted speeds on existing four-lane sections. Intersections are proposed to be at-grade with two-way stops on the intersecting local roads. Left and right turn lanes would be provided at all public roads. At nonpublic road median crossovers, left turn lanes would be constructed. Other improvements include minor reconstruction of cross street intersections and access/driveway modifications. Total construction and right of-way acquisition costs, estimated in year of construction dollars (2013 to 2018), are $23 million for the east gap, $16.8 million for the middle gap, and $18 to $20.6 million for the west gap. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued implementation of transportation system improvements in the corridor would provide a logical, safe, and predictable system for highway users and maintain mobility to address growing freight traffic. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way would require 385 to 421 acres and one to three commercial relocations. Approximately 320 to 350 acres of farmland would be converted and 6.2 to 7.9 acres of wetlands would be impacted. The build alternative could require water body modification at Clear Lake (0.2 to 1.2 acres) and Warren Pond (0.3 acres).Three receptors are anticipated to experience noise levels above local daytime standards, while the number of potential exceedances for nighttime standards is 23 to 33 receptors. Twenty-two contaminated sites have been identified in the project area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110384, 162 pages and maps, Original EIS and ROD--CD-ROM, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota 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/916835768?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+ST.+JAMES+TO+WINDOM%2C+COTTONWOOD+AND+WATONWAN+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1983%29.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+ST.+JAMES+TO+WINDOM%2C+COTTONWOOD+AND+WATONWAN+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1983%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 - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-20 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Hydrologic controls on wash load sediment concentrations within a low-ordered, ephemeral watershed AN - 911151840; 15937008 AB - This study explores the influence of rainfall and runoff production on wash load sediment transport in a low-order, ephemeral watershed in southeast Arizona. Wash load concentrations measured at the watershed outlet generally decreased throughout a runoff event and were better correlated with the rainfall intensity and the rainfall volume that fell within the 6min (the watershed's 'time of concentration') before the sediment concentration was measured than with the runoff discharge. The difference between the rainfall volume per unit time and the runoff discharge was primarily due to infiltration and transmission losses, processes that reduce runoff volume but do not appear to affect the wash load concentration within the runoff. Infiltration and transmission losses are significant in this watershed and vary considerably in space and time but are generally described by an inverse relationship between the runoff coefficient and drainage area. Runoff coefficients vary amongst runoff events and are correlated to the peak rainfall intensity during each event. Results indicate that wash load concentrations are set by the sediment entrainment processes occurring on the hillslopes (e.g., rainsplash, Hortonian overland flow) and do not greatly fluctuate as water is routed through the watershed. This suggests that wash load concentration may be better predicted by metrics of rainfall than flow discharge in certain environments. Using rainfall as a predictor of wash load could be useful for estimating sediment fluxes in semiarid regions where flow discharge is often difficult to monitor and sediment transport concentrations can be high (i.e., >10,000mgL-1). JF - Journal of Hydrology (Amsterdam) AU - Yuill, Brendan T AU - Gasparini, Nicole M AD - USACE ERDC, 3909 Halls Ferry Rd., Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA, brendan.t.yuill@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2011/11/15/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Nov 15 SP - 73 EP - 83 PB - Elsevier B.V., P.O. Box 211 Amsterdam 1000 AE Netherlands VL - 410 IS - 1-2 SN - 0022-1694, 0022-1694 KW - Environment Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Rainfall intensities KW - Entrainment KW - Rainfall KW - Freshwater KW - Watersheds KW - Hydrology KW - Sediment transport KW - Sediment Concentration KW - Rainfall Intensity KW - Wash Load KW - Rainfall runoff KW - Drainage KW - River discharge KW - Flow Discharge KW - Overland flow KW - Sediments KW - Infiltration KW - USA, Arizona KW - Transmission loss KW - Runoff KW - AQ 00001:Water Resources and Supplies KW - Q2 09264:Sediments and sedimentation KW - SW 0835:Streamflow and runoff KW - M2 556.16:Runoff (556.16) KW - ENA 19:Water Pollution UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/911151840?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Hydrology+%28Amsterdam%29&rft.atitle=Hydrologic+controls+on+wash+load+sediment+concentrations+within+a+low-ordered%2C+ephemeral+watershed&rft.au=Yuill%2C+Brendan+T%3BGasparini%2C+Nicole+M&rft.aulast=Yuill&rft.aufirst=Brendan&rft.date=2011-11-15&rft.volume=410&rft.issue=1-2&rft.spage=73&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Hydrology+%28Amsterdam%29&rft.issn=00221694&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.jhydrol.2011.09.011 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - Number of references - 2 N1 - Last updated - 2015-04-09 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - River discharge; Hydrology; Transmission loss; Sediment transport; Watersheds; Runoff; Entrainment; Rainfall intensities; Rainfall runoff; Drainage; Infiltration; Overland flow; Rainfall; Wash Load; Flow Discharge; Rainfall Intensity; Sediment Concentration; Sediments; USA, Arizona; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.09.011 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 15 of 15] T2 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 917565899; 15138-1_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 100-megawatt, solar-powered electrical generation facility in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in La Paz County, Arizona is proposed. Quartzsite Solar Energy, LLC (QSE) has submitted an application to the Western Area Power Administration to interconnect the concentrating solar power plant to Westerns transmission system at the Bouse-Kofa 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. In addition, QSE has submitted a right-of-way application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the project facility to be constructed on a total of 1,675 acres of federal land. An amendment to the BLM's Yuma Resource Management Plan would modify visual restrictions for approximately 6,800 acres in order to allow characteristics that are being requested for the energy project. The proposed generation plant, power line and ancillary facilities would be located on the east side of State Route 95 (SR 95) approximately 10 miles north of Quartzsite, Arizona. Project components would include: a 653-foot-tall central receiver and solar collecting tower, up to 17,500 heliostats (mirrors), a conventional steam turbine generator, insulated storage tanks for hot and cold liquid (molten) salt, evaporation ponds, a switchyard, onsite transformers and 161/230-kV electrical substation, a 1.5-mile long 161/230-kV overhead transmission line, a 1.5-mile long overhead line to provide auxiliary power to the project area, an access road from SR 95 to the solar field, water wells and a water supply pipeline. Operational water requirements for the proposed dry-cooled plant would be 200 acre-feet per year. In addition to the applicant's proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and a hybrid-cooled alternative with operational water requirements in the range of 500 to 700 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would be capable of producing 450 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy annually and would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western United States. Construction is expected to provide an average of 280 full-time jobs over a 30-month span. Operation is expected to employ 47 full-time workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would increase the potential for soil erosion and result in the loss of up to 1,675 acres of wildlife habitat, including 51.5 acres of moderately suitable habitat for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The proposed facility would introduce a new visual element to the landscape and would degrade the desired experience of visitors to wilderness and scenic areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110381, 562 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0440 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917565899?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 14 of 15] T2 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 917565280; 15138-1_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 100-megawatt, solar-powered electrical generation facility in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in La Paz County, Arizona is proposed. Quartzsite Solar Energy, LLC (QSE) has submitted an application to the Western Area Power Administration to interconnect the concentrating solar power plant to Westerns transmission system at the Bouse-Kofa 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. In addition, QSE has submitted a right-of-way application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the project facility to be constructed on a total of 1,675 acres of federal land. An amendment to the BLM's Yuma Resource Management Plan would modify visual restrictions for approximately 6,800 acres in order to allow characteristics that are being requested for the energy project. The proposed generation plant, power line and ancillary facilities would be located on the east side of State Route 95 (SR 95) approximately 10 miles north of Quartzsite, Arizona. Project components would include: a 653-foot-tall central receiver and solar collecting tower, up to 17,500 heliostats (mirrors), a conventional steam turbine generator, insulated storage tanks for hot and cold liquid (molten) salt, evaporation ponds, a switchyard, onsite transformers and 161/230-kV electrical substation, a 1.5-mile long 161/230-kV overhead transmission line, a 1.5-mile long overhead line to provide auxiliary power to the project area, an access road from SR 95 to the solar field, water wells and a water supply pipeline. Operational water requirements for the proposed dry-cooled plant would be 200 acre-feet per year. In addition to the applicant's proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and a hybrid-cooled alternative with operational water requirements in the range of 500 to 700 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would be capable of producing 450 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy annually and would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western United States. Construction is expected to provide an average of 280 full-time jobs over a 30-month span. Operation is expected to employ 47 full-time workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would increase the potential for soil erosion and result in the loss of up to 1,675 acres of wildlife habitat, including 51.5 acres of moderately suitable habitat for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The proposed facility would introduce a new visual element to the landscape and would degrade the desired experience of visitors to wilderness and scenic areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110381, 562 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0440 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917565280?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 13 of 15] T2 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 917565271; 15138-1_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 100-megawatt, solar-powered electrical generation facility in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in La Paz County, Arizona is proposed. Quartzsite Solar Energy, LLC (QSE) has submitted an application to the Western Area Power Administration to interconnect the concentrating solar power plant to Westerns transmission system at the Bouse-Kofa 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. In addition, QSE has submitted a right-of-way application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the project facility to be constructed on a total of 1,675 acres of federal land. An amendment to the BLM's Yuma Resource Management Plan would modify visual restrictions for approximately 6,800 acres in order to allow characteristics that are being requested for the energy project. The proposed generation plant, power line and ancillary facilities would be located on the east side of State Route 95 (SR 95) approximately 10 miles north of Quartzsite, Arizona. Project components would include: a 653-foot-tall central receiver and solar collecting tower, up to 17,500 heliostats (mirrors), a conventional steam turbine generator, insulated storage tanks for hot and cold liquid (molten) salt, evaporation ponds, a switchyard, onsite transformers and 161/230-kV electrical substation, a 1.5-mile long 161/230-kV overhead transmission line, a 1.5-mile long overhead line to provide auxiliary power to the project area, an access road from SR 95 to the solar field, water wells and a water supply pipeline. Operational water requirements for the proposed dry-cooled plant would be 200 acre-feet per year. In addition to the applicant's proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and a hybrid-cooled alternative with operational water requirements in the range of 500 to 700 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would be capable of producing 450 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy annually and would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western United States. Construction is expected to provide an average of 280 full-time jobs over a 30-month span. Operation is expected to employ 47 full-time workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would increase the potential for soil erosion and result in the loss of up to 1,675 acres of wildlife habitat, including 51.5 acres of moderately suitable habitat for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The proposed facility would introduce a new visual element to the landscape and would degrade the desired experience of visitors to wilderness and scenic areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110381, 562 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0440 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917565271?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 12 of 15] T2 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 917565264; 15138-1_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 100-megawatt, solar-powered electrical generation facility in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in La Paz County, Arizona is proposed. Quartzsite Solar Energy, LLC (QSE) has submitted an application to the Western Area Power Administration to interconnect the concentrating solar power plant to Westerns transmission system at the Bouse-Kofa 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. In addition, QSE has submitted a right-of-way application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the project facility to be constructed on a total of 1,675 acres of federal land. An amendment to the BLM's Yuma Resource Management Plan would modify visual restrictions for approximately 6,800 acres in order to allow characteristics that are being requested for the energy project. The proposed generation plant, power line and ancillary facilities would be located on the east side of State Route 95 (SR 95) approximately 10 miles north of Quartzsite, Arizona. Project components would include: a 653-foot-tall central receiver and solar collecting tower, up to 17,500 heliostats (mirrors), a conventional steam turbine generator, insulated storage tanks for hot and cold liquid (molten) salt, evaporation ponds, a switchyard, onsite transformers and 161/230-kV electrical substation, a 1.5-mile long 161/230-kV overhead transmission line, a 1.5-mile long overhead line to provide auxiliary power to the project area, an access road from SR 95 to the solar field, water wells and a water supply pipeline. Operational water requirements for the proposed dry-cooled plant would be 200 acre-feet per year. In addition to the applicant's proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and a hybrid-cooled alternative with operational water requirements in the range of 500 to 700 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would be capable of producing 450 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy annually and would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western United States. Construction is expected to provide an average of 280 full-time jobs over a 30-month span. Operation is expected to employ 47 full-time workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would increase the potential for soil erosion and result in the loss of up to 1,675 acres of wildlife habitat, including 51.5 acres of moderately suitable habitat for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The proposed facility would introduce a new visual element to the landscape and would degrade the desired experience of visitors to wilderness and scenic areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110381, 562 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0440 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917565264?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 11 of 15] T2 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 917565255; 15138-1_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 100-megawatt, solar-powered electrical generation facility in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in La Paz County, Arizona is proposed. Quartzsite Solar Energy, LLC (QSE) has submitted an application to the Western Area Power Administration to interconnect the concentrating solar power plant to Westerns transmission system at the Bouse-Kofa 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. In addition, QSE has submitted a right-of-way application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the project facility to be constructed on a total of 1,675 acres of federal land. An amendment to the BLM's Yuma Resource Management Plan would modify visual restrictions for approximately 6,800 acres in order to allow characteristics that are being requested for the energy project. The proposed generation plant, power line and ancillary facilities would be located on the east side of State Route 95 (SR 95) approximately 10 miles north of Quartzsite, Arizona. Project components would include: a 653-foot-tall central receiver and solar collecting tower, up to 17,500 heliostats (mirrors), a conventional steam turbine generator, insulated storage tanks for hot and cold liquid (molten) salt, evaporation ponds, a switchyard, onsite transformers and 161/230-kV electrical substation, a 1.5-mile long 161/230-kV overhead transmission line, a 1.5-mile long overhead line to provide auxiliary power to the project area, an access road from SR 95 to the solar field, water wells and a water supply pipeline. Operational water requirements for the proposed dry-cooled plant would be 200 acre-feet per year. In addition to the applicant's proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and a hybrid-cooled alternative with operational water requirements in the range of 500 to 700 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would be capable of producing 450 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy annually and would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western United States. Construction is expected to provide an average of 280 full-time jobs over a 30-month span. Operation is expected to employ 47 full-time workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would increase the potential for soil erosion and result in the loss of up to 1,675 acres of wildlife habitat, including 51.5 acres of moderately suitable habitat for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The proposed facility would introduce a new visual element to the landscape and would degrade the desired experience of visitors to wilderness and scenic areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110381, 562 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0440 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917565255?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 10 of 15] T2 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 917565246; 15138-1_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 100-megawatt, solar-powered electrical generation facility in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in La Paz County, Arizona is proposed. Quartzsite Solar Energy, LLC (QSE) has submitted an application to the Western Area Power Administration to interconnect the concentrating solar power plant to Westerns transmission system at the Bouse-Kofa 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. In addition, QSE has submitted a right-of-way application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the project facility to be constructed on a total of 1,675 acres of federal land. An amendment to the BLM's Yuma Resource Management Plan would modify visual restrictions for approximately 6,800 acres in order to allow characteristics that are being requested for the energy project. The proposed generation plant, power line and ancillary facilities would be located on the east side of State Route 95 (SR 95) approximately 10 miles north of Quartzsite, Arizona. Project components would include: a 653-foot-tall central receiver and solar collecting tower, up to 17,500 heliostats (mirrors), a conventional steam turbine generator, insulated storage tanks for hot and cold liquid (molten) salt, evaporation ponds, a switchyard, onsite transformers and 161/230-kV electrical substation, a 1.5-mile long 161/230-kV overhead transmission line, a 1.5-mile long overhead line to provide auxiliary power to the project area, an access road from SR 95 to the solar field, water wells and a water supply pipeline. Operational water requirements for the proposed dry-cooled plant would be 200 acre-feet per year. In addition to the applicant's proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and a hybrid-cooled alternative with operational water requirements in the range of 500 to 700 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would be capable of producing 450 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy annually and would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western United States. Construction is expected to provide an average of 280 full-time jobs over a 30-month span. Operation is expected to employ 47 full-time workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would increase the potential for soil erosion and result in the loss of up to 1,675 acres of wildlife habitat, including 51.5 acres of moderately suitable habitat for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The proposed facility would introduce a new visual element to the landscape and would degrade the desired experience of visitors to wilderness and scenic areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110381, 562 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0440 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917565246?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 9 of 15] T2 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 917565236; 15138-1_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 100-megawatt, solar-powered electrical generation facility in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in La Paz County, Arizona is proposed. Quartzsite Solar Energy, LLC (QSE) has submitted an application to the Western Area Power Administration to interconnect the concentrating solar power plant to Westerns transmission system at the Bouse-Kofa 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. In addition, QSE has submitted a right-of-way application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the project facility to be constructed on a total of 1,675 acres of federal land. An amendment to the BLM's Yuma Resource Management Plan would modify visual restrictions for approximately 6,800 acres in order to allow characteristics that are being requested for the energy project. The proposed generation plant, power line and ancillary facilities would be located on the east side of State Route 95 (SR 95) approximately 10 miles north of Quartzsite, Arizona. Project components would include: a 653-foot-tall central receiver and solar collecting tower, up to 17,500 heliostats (mirrors), a conventional steam turbine generator, insulated storage tanks for hot and cold liquid (molten) salt, evaporation ponds, a switchyard, onsite transformers and 161/230-kV electrical substation, a 1.5-mile long 161/230-kV overhead transmission line, a 1.5-mile long overhead line to provide auxiliary power to the project area, an access road from SR 95 to the solar field, water wells and a water supply pipeline. Operational water requirements for the proposed dry-cooled plant would be 200 acre-feet per year. In addition to the applicant's proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and a hybrid-cooled alternative with operational water requirements in the range of 500 to 700 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would be capable of producing 450 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy annually and would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western United States. Construction is expected to provide an average of 280 full-time jobs over a 30-month span. Operation is expected to employ 47 full-time workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would increase the potential for soil erosion and result in the loss of up to 1,675 acres of wildlife habitat, including 51.5 acres of moderately suitable habitat for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The proposed facility would introduce a new visual element to the landscape and would degrade the desired experience of visitors to wilderness and scenic areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110381, 562 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0440 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917565236?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 8 of 15] T2 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 917565227; 15138-1_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 100-megawatt, solar-powered electrical generation facility in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in La Paz County, Arizona is proposed. Quartzsite Solar Energy, LLC (QSE) has submitted an application to the Western Area Power Administration to interconnect the concentrating solar power plant to Westerns transmission system at the Bouse-Kofa 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. In addition, QSE has submitted a right-of-way application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the project facility to be constructed on a total of 1,675 acres of federal land. An amendment to the BLM's Yuma Resource Management Plan would modify visual restrictions for approximately 6,800 acres in order to allow characteristics that are being requested for the energy project. The proposed generation plant, power line and ancillary facilities would be located on the east side of State Route 95 (SR 95) approximately 10 miles north of Quartzsite, Arizona. Project components would include: a 653-foot-tall central receiver and solar collecting tower, up to 17,500 heliostats (mirrors), a conventional steam turbine generator, insulated storage tanks for hot and cold liquid (molten) salt, evaporation ponds, a switchyard, onsite transformers and 161/230-kV electrical substation, a 1.5-mile long 161/230-kV overhead transmission line, a 1.5-mile long overhead line to provide auxiliary power to the project area, an access road from SR 95 to the solar field, water wells and a water supply pipeline. Operational water requirements for the proposed dry-cooled plant would be 200 acre-feet per year. In addition to the applicant's proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and a hybrid-cooled alternative with operational water requirements in the range of 500 to 700 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would be capable of producing 450 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy annually and would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western United States. Construction is expected to provide an average of 280 full-time jobs over a 30-month span. Operation is expected to employ 47 full-time workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would increase the potential for soil erosion and result in the loss of up to 1,675 acres of wildlife habitat, including 51.5 acres of moderately suitable habitat for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The proposed facility would introduce a new visual element to the landscape and would degrade the desired experience of visitors to wilderness and scenic areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110381, 562 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0440 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917565227?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 7 of 15] T2 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 917565220; 15138-1_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 100-megawatt, solar-powered electrical generation facility in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in La Paz County, Arizona is proposed. Quartzsite Solar Energy, LLC (QSE) has submitted an application to the Western Area Power Administration to interconnect the concentrating solar power plant to Westerns transmission system at the Bouse-Kofa 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. In addition, QSE has submitted a right-of-way application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the project facility to be constructed on a total of 1,675 acres of federal land. An amendment to the BLM's Yuma Resource Management Plan would modify visual restrictions for approximately 6,800 acres in order to allow characteristics that are being requested for the energy project. The proposed generation plant, power line and ancillary facilities would be located on the east side of State Route 95 (SR 95) approximately 10 miles north of Quartzsite, Arizona. Project components would include: a 653-foot-tall central receiver and solar collecting tower, up to 17,500 heliostats (mirrors), a conventional steam turbine generator, insulated storage tanks for hot and cold liquid (molten) salt, evaporation ponds, a switchyard, onsite transformers and 161/230-kV electrical substation, a 1.5-mile long 161/230-kV overhead transmission line, a 1.5-mile long overhead line to provide auxiliary power to the project area, an access road from SR 95 to the solar field, water wells and a water supply pipeline. Operational water requirements for the proposed dry-cooled plant would be 200 acre-feet per year. In addition to the applicant's proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and a hybrid-cooled alternative with operational water requirements in the range of 500 to 700 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would be capable of producing 450 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy annually and would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western United States. Construction is expected to provide an average of 280 full-time jobs over a 30-month span. Operation is expected to employ 47 full-time workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would increase the potential for soil erosion and result in the loss of up to 1,675 acres of wildlife habitat, including 51.5 acres of moderately suitable habitat for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The proposed facility would introduce a new visual element to the landscape and would degrade the desired experience of visitors to wilderness and scenic areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110381, 562 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0440 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917565220?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 1 of 15] T2 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 917565189; 15138-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 100-megawatt, solar-powered electrical generation facility in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in La Paz County, Arizona is proposed. Quartzsite Solar Energy, LLC (QSE) has submitted an application to the Western Area Power Administration to interconnect the concentrating solar power plant to Westerns transmission system at the Bouse-Kofa 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. In addition, QSE has submitted a right-of-way application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the project facility to be constructed on a total of 1,675 acres of federal land. An amendment to the BLM's Yuma Resource Management Plan would modify visual restrictions for approximately 6,800 acres in order to allow characteristics that are being requested for the energy project. The proposed generation plant, power line and ancillary facilities would be located on the east side of State Route 95 (SR 95) approximately 10 miles north of Quartzsite, Arizona. Project components would include: a 653-foot-tall central receiver and solar collecting tower, up to 17,500 heliostats (mirrors), a conventional steam turbine generator, insulated storage tanks for hot and cold liquid (molten) salt, evaporation ponds, a switchyard, onsite transformers and 161/230-kV electrical substation, a 1.5-mile long 161/230-kV overhead transmission line, a 1.5-mile long overhead line to provide auxiliary power to the project area, an access road from SR 95 to the solar field, water wells and a water supply pipeline. Operational water requirements for the proposed dry-cooled plant would be 200 acre-feet per year. In addition to the applicant's proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and a hybrid-cooled alternative with operational water requirements in the range of 500 to 700 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would be capable of producing 450 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy annually and would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western United States. Construction is expected to provide an average of 280 full-time jobs over a 30-month span. Operation is expected to employ 47 full-time workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would increase the potential for soil erosion and result in the loss of up to 1,675 acres of wildlife habitat, including 51.5 acres of moderately suitable habitat for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The proposed facility would introduce a new visual element to the landscape and would degrade the desired experience of visitors to wilderness and scenic areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110381, 562 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0440 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917565189?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 6 of 15] T2 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 917565128; 15138-1_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 100-megawatt, solar-powered electrical generation facility in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in La Paz County, Arizona is proposed. Quartzsite Solar Energy, LLC (QSE) has submitted an application to the Western Area Power Administration to interconnect the concentrating solar power plant to Westerns transmission system at the Bouse-Kofa 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. In addition, QSE has submitted a right-of-way application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the project facility to be constructed on a total of 1,675 acres of federal land. An amendment to the BLM's Yuma Resource Management Plan would modify visual restrictions for approximately 6,800 acres in order to allow characteristics that are being requested for the energy project. The proposed generation plant, power line and ancillary facilities would be located on the east side of State Route 95 (SR 95) approximately 10 miles north of Quartzsite, Arizona. Project components would include: a 653-foot-tall central receiver and solar collecting tower, up to 17,500 heliostats (mirrors), a conventional steam turbine generator, insulated storage tanks for hot and cold liquid (molten) salt, evaporation ponds, a switchyard, onsite transformers and 161/230-kV electrical substation, a 1.5-mile long 161/230-kV overhead transmission line, a 1.5-mile long overhead line to provide auxiliary power to the project area, an access road from SR 95 to the solar field, water wells and a water supply pipeline. Operational water requirements for the proposed dry-cooled plant would be 200 acre-feet per year. In addition to the applicant's proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and a hybrid-cooled alternative with operational water requirements in the range of 500 to 700 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would be capable of producing 450 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy annually and would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western United States. Construction is expected to provide an average of 280 full-time jobs over a 30-month span. Operation is expected to employ 47 full-time workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would increase the potential for soil erosion and result in the loss of up to 1,675 acres of wildlife habitat, including 51.5 acres of moderately suitable habitat for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The proposed facility would introduce a new visual element to the landscape and would degrade the desired experience of visitors to wilderness and scenic areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110381, 562 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0440 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917565128?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BATON ROUGE LOOP, PARISHES OF ASCENSION, EAST BATON ROUGE, IBERVILLE, LIVINGSTON, AND WEST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 17 of 17] T2 - BATON ROUGE LOOP, PARISHES OF ASCENSION, EAST BATON ROUGE, IBERVILLE, LIVINGSTON, AND WEST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 917565125; 15135-8_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll roadway around Baton Rouge, Louisiana is proposed. The Baton Rouge Loop would extend 90 to 105 miles through the parishes of Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, and West Baton Rouge and would supplement Interstate 12 (I-12) and I-10. Traffic congestion and delays in the five-parish region have steadily worsened over the past 15 years. Traffic flow is restricted at the I-10 and US 190 Mississippi River Bridge crossings, and the lack of convenient alternative routes and system connectivity forces local traffic onto I-10 and I-12, increasing congestion. The Baton Rouge Loop would initially be constructed as a four-lane facility, two 12-foot lanes each direction, with the ability to add at least two additional lanes in the median when traffic demands warrant. The proposed typical roadway section would also provide space within the average 400-foot right-of-way to add continuous frontage roads, if needed, with bike paths and transit potentially sharing the footprint. Sections of the route would be elevated above existing terrain in environmentally sensitive areas. This Tier 1 draft EIS examines a No Build Alternative and a Build Alternative that is composed of thirty-one corridor alternatives in three geographic units. For the North Unit, three of five corridor alternatives are recommended for further input and consideration. In the South Unit, nine of the eighteen corridor alternatives are recommended for exclusion due to issues associated with wetland mitigation banks. For the East Unit, four of eight corridor alternatives are recommended for additional deliberation. Locally preferred corridors include two potential Mississippi River bridge locations. One is north of the present I-10 bridge either in the existing US 190 bridge corridor or five miles north of the US 190 bridge; and the second is south of the existing I-10 bridge either at the Missouri Bend north of Addis or in Iberville Parish between Plaquemine and St. Gabriel. Various corridor alternative options exist through northern Livingston and East Baton Rouge Parishes, and Iberville and Ascension Parishes between the Mississippi and Amite Rivers. System-to-system four-level interchanges would connect the Baton Rouge Loop to I-10 and I-12, and perhaps other major highways such as US 190, US 51, and State Route 1. Other interchanges would vary but would most commonly be diamond-type interchanges. The preliminary capital cost estimate for the Baton Rouge Loop in 2009 dollars is between $4 billion and $4.9 billion. A sensitivity analysis shows that an initial toll rate of $0.15 per mile would maximize revenue generated by the Loop. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facility would reduce congestion and delay on I-10, I-12 and other major arterial corridors. Expanded roadway capacity would address future travel demand, enhance the regional transportation network, and improve the safe movement of people and goods within and through the five-parish project area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact fish and wildlife, including eight threatened and endangered species. Potential secondary development spurred by construction would have a high likelihood of impacting wetland, floodplain, and/or agricultural resources. Approximately one-third of each North Unit corridor alternative is comprised of wetlands, 40 percent is comprised of floodplains, and 34 percent consist of agricultural lands. On average, 56 percent of the area contained within the South Unit corridor alternatives consists of wetlands, 55 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 42 percent consists of agricultural lands. For the East Unit alternatives, 51 percent of the area consists of wetlands, 81 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 9.6 percent consists of agricultural lands. The project area contains numerous community facilities, cultural resources, hazardous waste sites, and oil and gas wells. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110378, Volume 1--496 pages and maps, Volume 2 (Exhibits)--139 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi River KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917565125?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BATON ROUGE LOOP, PARISHES OF ASCENSION, EAST BATON ROUGE, IBERVILLE, LIVINGSTON, AND WEST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 16 of 17] T2 - BATON ROUGE LOOP, PARISHES OF ASCENSION, EAST BATON ROUGE, IBERVILLE, LIVINGSTON, AND WEST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 917565122; 15135-8_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll roadway around Baton Rouge, Louisiana is proposed. The Baton Rouge Loop would extend 90 to 105 miles through the parishes of Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, and West Baton Rouge and would supplement Interstate 12 (I-12) and I-10. Traffic congestion and delays in the five-parish region have steadily worsened over the past 15 years. Traffic flow is restricted at the I-10 and US 190 Mississippi River Bridge crossings, and the lack of convenient alternative routes and system connectivity forces local traffic onto I-10 and I-12, increasing congestion. The Baton Rouge Loop would initially be constructed as a four-lane facility, two 12-foot lanes each direction, with the ability to add at least two additional lanes in the median when traffic demands warrant. The proposed typical roadway section would also provide space within the average 400-foot right-of-way to add continuous frontage roads, if needed, with bike paths and transit potentially sharing the footprint. Sections of the route would be elevated above existing terrain in environmentally sensitive areas. This Tier 1 draft EIS examines a No Build Alternative and a Build Alternative that is composed of thirty-one corridor alternatives in three geographic units. For the North Unit, three of five corridor alternatives are recommended for further input and consideration. In the South Unit, nine of the eighteen corridor alternatives are recommended for exclusion due to issues associated with wetland mitigation banks. For the East Unit, four of eight corridor alternatives are recommended for additional deliberation. Locally preferred corridors include two potential Mississippi River bridge locations. One is north of the present I-10 bridge either in the existing US 190 bridge corridor or five miles north of the US 190 bridge; and the second is south of the existing I-10 bridge either at the Missouri Bend north of Addis or in Iberville Parish between Plaquemine and St. Gabriel. Various corridor alternative options exist through northern Livingston and East Baton Rouge Parishes, and Iberville and Ascension Parishes between the Mississippi and Amite Rivers. System-to-system four-level interchanges would connect the Baton Rouge Loop to I-10 and I-12, and perhaps other major highways such as US 190, US 51, and State Route 1. Other interchanges would vary but would most commonly be diamond-type interchanges. The preliminary capital cost estimate for the Baton Rouge Loop in 2009 dollars is between $4 billion and $4.9 billion. A sensitivity analysis shows that an initial toll rate of $0.15 per mile would maximize revenue generated by the Loop. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facility would reduce congestion and delay on I-10, I-12 and other major arterial corridors. Expanded roadway capacity would address future travel demand, enhance the regional transportation network, and improve the safe movement of people and goods within and through the five-parish project area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact fish and wildlife, including eight threatened and endangered species. Potential secondary development spurred by construction would have a high likelihood of impacting wetland, floodplain, and/or agricultural resources. Approximately one-third of each North Unit corridor alternative is comprised of wetlands, 40 percent is comprised of floodplains, and 34 percent consist of agricultural lands. On average, 56 percent of the area contained within the South Unit corridor alternatives consists of wetlands, 55 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 42 percent consists of agricultural lands. For the East Unit alternatives, 51 percent of the area consists of wetlands, 81 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 9.6 percent consists of agricultural lands. The project area contains numerous community facilities, cultural resources, hazardous waste sites, and oil and gas wells. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110378, Volume 1--496 pages and maps, Volume 2 (Exhibits)--139 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi River KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917565122?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 5 of 15] T2 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 917565120; 15138-1_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 100-megawatt, solar-powered electrical generation facility in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in La Paz County, Arizona is proposed. Quartzsite Solar Energy, LLC (QSE) has submitted an application to the Western Area Power Administration to interconnect the concentrating solar power plant to Westerns transmission system at the Bouse-Kofa 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. In addition, QSE has submitted a right-of-way application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the project facility to be constructed on a total of 1,675 acres of federal land. An amendment to the BLM's Yuma Resource Management Plan would modify visual restrictions for approximately 6,800 acres in order to allow characteristics that are being requested for the energy project. The proposed generation plant, power line and ancillary facilities would be located on the east side of State Route 95 (SR 95) approximately 10 miles north of Quartzsite, Arizona. Project components would include: a 653-foot-tall central receiver and solar collecting tower, up to 17,500 heliostats (mirrors), a conventional steam turbine generator, insulated storage tanks for hot and cold liquid (molten) salt, evaporation ponds, a switchyard, onsite transformers and 161/230-kV electrical substation, a 1.5-mile long 161/230-kV overhead transmission line, a 1.5-mile long overhead line to provide auxiliary power to the project area, an access road from SR 95 to the solar field, water wells and a water supply pipeline. Operational water requirements for the proposed dry-cooled plant would be 200 acre-feet per year. In addition to the applicant's proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and a hybrid-cooled alternative with operational water requirements in the range of 500 to 700 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would be capable of producing 450 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy annually and would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western United States. Construction is expected to provide an average of 280 full-time jobs over a 30-month span. Operation is expected to employ 47 full-time workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would increase the potential for soil erosion and result in the loss of up to 1,675 acres of wildlife habitat, including 51.5 acres of moderately suitable habitat for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The proposed facility would introduce a new visual element to the landscape and would degrade the desired experience of visitors to wilderness and scenic areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110381, 562 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0440 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917565120?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BATON ROUGE LOOP, PARISHES OF ASCENSION, EAST BATON ROUGE, IBERVILLE, LIVINGSTON, AND WEST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 15 of 17] T2 - BATON ROUGE LOOP, PARISHES OF ASCENSION, EAST BATON ROUGE, IBERVILLE, LIVINGSTON, AND WEST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 917565117; 15135-8_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll roadway around Baton Rouge, Louisiana is proposed. The Baton Rouge Loop would extend 90 to 105 miles through the parishes of Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, and West Baton Rouge and would supplement Interstate 12 (I-12) and I-10. Traffic congestion and delays in the five-parish region have steadily worsened over the past 15 years. Traffic flow is restricted at the I-10 and US 190 Mississippi River Bridge crossings, and the lack of convenient alternative routes and system connectivity forces local traffic onto I-10 and I-12, increasing congestion. The Baton Rouge Loop would initially be constructed as a four-lane facility, two 12-foot lanes each direction, with the ability to add at least two additional lanes in the median when traffic demands warrant. The proposed typical roadway section would also provide space within the average 400-foot right-of-way to add continuous frontage roads, if needed, with bike paths and transit potentially sharing the footprint. Sections of the route would be elevated above existing terrain in environmentally sensitive areas. This Tier 1 draft EIS examines a No Build Alternative and a Build Alternative that is composed of thirty-one corridor alternatives in three geographic units. For the North Unit, three of five corridor alternatives are recommended for further input and consideration. In the South Unit, nine of the eighteen corridor alternatives are recommended for exclusion due to issues associated with wetland mitigation banks. For the East Unit, four of eight corridor alternatives are recommended for additional deliberation. Locally preferred corridors include two potential Mississippi River bridge locations. One is north of the present I-10 bridge either in the existing US 190 bridge corridor or five miles north of the US 190 bridge; and the second is south of the existing I-10 bridge either at the Missouri Bend north of Addis or in Iberville Parish between Plaquemine and St. Gabriel. Various corridor alternative options exist through northern Livingston and East Baton Rouge Parishes, and Iberville and Ascension Parishes between the Mississippi and Amite Rivers. System-to-system four-level interchanges would connect the Baton Rouge Loop to I-10 and I-12, and perhaps other major highways such as US 190, US 51, and State Route 1. Other interchanges would vary but would most commonly be diamond-type interchanges. The preliminary capital cost estimate for the Baton Rouge Loop in 2009 dollars is between $4 billion and $4.9 billion. A sensitivity analysis shows that an initial toll rate of $0.15 per mile would maximize revenue generated by the Loop. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facility would reduce congestion and delay on I-10, I-12 and other major arterial corridors. Expanded roadway capacity would address future travel demand, enhance the regional transportation network, and improve the safe movement of people and goods within and through the five-parish project area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact fish and wildlife, including eight threatened and endangered species. Potential secondary development spurred by construction would have a high likelihood of impacting wetland, floodplain, and/or agricultural resources. Approximately one-third of each North Unit corridor alternative is comprised of wetlands, 40 percent is comprised of floodplains, and 34 percent consist of agricultural lands. On average, 56 percent of the area contained within the South Unit corridor alternatives consists of wetlands, 55 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 42 percent consists of agricultural lands. For the East Unit alternatives, 51 percent of the area consists of wetlands, 81 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 9.6 percent consists of agricultural lands. The project area contains numerous community facilities, cultural resources, hazardous waste sites, and oil and gas wells. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110378, Volume 1--496 pages and maps, Volume 2 (Exhibits)--139 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi River KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917565117?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 4 of 15] T2 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 917565112; 15138-1_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 100-megawatt, solar-powered electrical generation facility in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in La Paz County, Arizona is proposed. Quartzsite Solar Energy, LLC (QSE) has submitted an application to the Western Area Power Administration to interconnect the concentrating solar power plant to Westerns transmission system at the Bouse-Kofa 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. In addition, QSE has submitted a right-of-way application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the project facility to be constructed on a total of 1,675 acres of federal land. An amendment to the BLM's Yuma Resource Management Plan would modify visual restrictions for approximately 6,800 acres in order to allow characteristics that are being requested for the energy project. The proposed generation plant, power line and ancillary facilities would be located on the east side of State Route 95 (SR 95) approximately 10 miles north of Quartzsite, Arizona. Project components would include: a 653-foot-tall central receiver and solar collecting tower, up to 17,500 heliostats (mirrors), a conventional steam turbine generator, insulated storage tanks for hot and cold liquid (molten) salt, evaporation ponds, a switchyard, onsite transformers and 161/230-kV electrical substation, a 1.5-mile long 161/230-kV overhead transmission line, a 1.5-mile long overhead line to provide auxiliary power to the project area, an access road from SR 95 to the solar field, water wells and a water supply pipeline. Operational water requirements for the proposed dry-cooled plant would be 200 acre-feet per year. In addition to the applicant's proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and a hybrid-cooled alternative with operational water requirements in the range of 500 to 700 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would be capable of producing 450 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy annually and would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western United States. Construction is expected to provide an average of 280 full-time jobs over a 30-month span. Operation is expected to employ 47 full-time workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would increase the potential for soil erosion and result in the loss of up to 1,675 acres of wildlife habitat, including 51.5 acres of moderately suitable habitat for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The proposed facility would introduce a new visual element to the landscape and would degrade the desired experience of visitors to wilderness and scenic areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110381, 562 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0440 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917565112?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BATON ROUGE LOOP, PARISHES OF ASCENSION, EAST BATON ROUGE, IBERVILLE, LIVINGSTON, AND WEST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 14 of 17] T2 - BATON ROUGE LOOP, PARISHES OF ASCENSION, EAST BATON ROUGE, IBERVILLE, LIVINGSTON, AND WEST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 917565111; 15135-8_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll roadway around Baton Rouge, Louisiana is proposed. The Baton Rouge Loop would extend 90 to 105 miles through the parishes of Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, and West Baton Rouge and would supplement Interstate 12 (I-12) and I-10. Traffic congestion and delays in the five-parish region have steadily worsened over the past 15 years. Traffic flow is restricted at the I-10 and US 190 Mississippi River Bridge crossings, and the lack of convenient alternative routes and system connectivity forces local traffic onto I-10 and I-12, increasing congestion. The Baton Rouge Loop would initially be constructed as a four-lane facility, two 12-foot lanes each direction, with the ability to add at least two additional lanes in the median when traffic demands warrant. The proposed typical roadway section would also provide space within the average 400-foot right-of-way to add continuous frontage roads, if needed, with bike paths and transit potentially sharing the footprint. Sections of the route would be elevated above existing terrain in environmentally sensitive areas. This Tier 1 draft EIS examines a No Build Alternative and a Build Alternative that is composed of thirty-one corridor alternatives in three geographic units. For the North Unit, three of five corridor alternatives are recommended for further input and consideration. In the South Unit, nine of the eighteen corridor alternatives are recommended for exclusion due to issues associated with wetland mitigation banks. For the East Unit, four of eight corridor alternatives are recommended for additional deliberation. Locally preferred corridors include two potential Mississippi River bridge locations. One is north of the present I-10 bridge either in the existing US 190 bridge corridor or five miles north of the US 190 bridge; and the second is south of the existing I-10 bridge either at the Missouri Bend north of Addis or in Iberville Parish between Plaquemine and St. Gabriel. Various corridor alternative options exist through northern Livingston and East Baton Rouge Parishes, and Iberville and Ascension Parishes between the Mississippi and Amite Rivers. System-to-system four-level interchanges would connect the Baton Rouge Loop to I-10 and I-12, and perhaps other major highways such as US 190, US 51, and State Route 1. Other interchanges would vary but would most commonly be diamond-type interchanges. The preliminary capital cost estimate for the Baton Rouge Loop in 2009 dollars is between $4 billion and $4.9 billion. A sensitivity analysis shows that an initial toll rate of $0.15 per mile would maximize revenue generated by the Loop. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facility would reduce congestion and delay on I-10, I-12 and other major arterial corridors. Expanded roadway capacity would address future travel demand, enhance the regional transportation network, and improve the safe movement of people and goods within and through the five-parish project area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact fish and wildlife, including eight threatened and endangered species. Potential secondary development spurred by construction would have a high likelihood of impacting wetland, floodplain, and/or agricultural resources. Approximately one-third of each North Unit corridor alternative is comprised of wetlands, 40 percent is comprised of floodplains, and 34 percent consist of agricultural lands. On average, 56 percent of the area contained within the South Unit corridor alternatives consists of wetlands, 55 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 42 percent consists of agricultural lands. For the East Unit alternatives, 51 percent of the area consists of wetlands, 81 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 9.6 percent consists of agricultural lands. The project area contains numerous community facilities, cultural resources, hazardous waste sites, and oil and gas wells. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110378, Volume 1--496 pages and maps, Volume 2 (Exhibits)--139 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi River KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917565111?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BATON ROUGE LOOP, PARISHES OF ASCENSION, EAST BATON ROUGE, IBERVILLE, LIVINGSTON, AND WEST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 13 of 17] T2 - BATON ROUGE LOOP, PARISHES OF ASCENSION, EAST BATON ROUGE, IBERVILLE, LIVINGSTON, AND WEST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 917565107; 15135-8_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll roadway around Baton Rouge, Louisiana is proposed. The Baton Rouge Loop would extend 90 to 105 miles through the parishes of Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, and West Baton Rouge and would supplement Interstate 12 (I-12) and I-10. Traffic congestion and delays in the five-parish region have steadily worsened over the past 15 years. Traffic flow is restricted at the I-10 and US 190 Mississippi River Bridge crossings, and the lack of convenient alternative routes and system connectivity forces local traffic onto I-10 and I-12, increasing congestion. The Baton Rouge Loop would initially be constructed as a four-lane facility, two 12-foot lanes each direction, with the ability to add at least two additional lanes in the median when traffic demands warrant. The proposed typical roadway section would also provide space within the average 400-foot right-of-way to add continuous frontage roads, if needed, with bike paths and transit potentially sharing the footprint. Sections of the route would be elevated above existing terrain in environmentally sensitive areas. This Tier 1 draft EIS examines a No Build Alternative and a Build Alternative that is composed of thirty-one corridor alternatives in three geographic units. For the North Unit, three of five corridor alternatives are recommended for further input and consideration. In the South Unit, nine of the eighteen corridor alternatives are recommended for exclusion due to issues associated with wetland mitigation banks. For the East Unit, four of eight corridor alternatives are recommended for additional deliberation. Locally preferred corridors include two potential Mississippi River bridge locations. One is north of the present I-10 bridge either in the existing US 190 bridge corridor or five miles north of the US 190 bridge; and the second is south of the existing I-10 bridge either at the Missouri Bend north of Addis or in Iberville Parish between Plaquemine and St. Gabriel. Various corridor alternative options exist through northern Livingston and East Baton Rouge Parishes, and Iberville and Ascension Parishes between the Mississippi and Amite Rivers. System-to-system four-level interchanges would connect the Baton Rouge Loop to I-10 and I-12, and perhaps other major highways such as US 190, US 51, and State Route 1. Other interchanges would vary but would most commonly be diamond-type interchanges. The preliminary capital cost estimate for the Baton Rouge Loop in 2009 dollars is between $4 billion and $4.9 billion. A sensitivity analysis shows that an initial toll rate of $0.15 per mile would maximize revenue generated by the Loop. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facility would reduce congestion and delay on I-10, I-12 and other major arterial corridors. Expanded roadway capacity would address future travel demand, enhance the regional transportation network, and improve the safe movement of people and goods within and through the five-parish project area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact fish and wildlife, including eight threatened and endangered species. Potential secondary development spurred by construction would have a high likelihood of impacting wetland, floodplain, and/or agricultural resources. Approximately one-third of each North Unit corridor alternative is comprised of wetlands, 40 percent is comprised of floodplains, and 34 percent consist of agricultural lands. On average, 56 percent of the area contained within the South Unit corridor alternatives consists of wetlands, 55 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 42 percent consists of agricultural lands. For the East Unit alternatives, 51 percent of the area consists of wetlands, 81 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 9.6 percent consists of agricultural lands. The project area contains numerous community facilities, cultural resources, hazardous waste sites, and oil and gas wells. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110378, Volume 1--496 pages and maps, Volume 2 (Exhibits)--139 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi River KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917565107?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 3 of 15] T2 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 917565105; 15138-1_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 100-megawatt, solar-powered electrical generation facility in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in La Paz County, Arizona is proposed. Quartzsite Solar Energy, LLC (QSE) has submitted an application to the Western Area Power Administration to interconnect the concentrating solar power plant to Westerns transmission system at the Bouse-Kofa 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. In addition, QSE has submitted a right-of-way application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the project facility to be constructed on a total of 1,675 acres of federal land. An amendment to the BLM's Yuma Resource Management Plan would modify visual restrictions for approximately 6,800 acres in order to allow characteristics that are being requested for the energy project. The proposed generation plant, power line and ancillary facilities would be located on the east side of State Route 95 (SR 95) approximately 10 miles north of Quartzsite, Arizona. Project components would include: a 653-foot-tall central receiver and solar collecting tower, up to 17,500 heliostats (mirrors), a conventional steam turbine generator, insulated storage tanks for hot and cold liquid (molten) salt, evaporation ponds, a switchyard, onsite transformers and 161/230-kV electrical substation, a 1.5-mile long 161/230-kV overhead transmission line, a 1.5-mile long overhead line to provide auxiliary power to the project area, an access road from SR 95 to the solar field, water wells and a water supply pipeline. Operational water requirements for the proposed dry-cooled plant would be 200 acre-feet per year. In addition to the applicant's proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and a hybrid-cooled alternative with operational water requirements in the range of 500 to 700 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would be capable of producing 450 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy annually and would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western United States. Construction is expected to provide an average of 280 full-time jobs over a 30-month span. Operation is expected to employ 47 full-time workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would increase the potential for soil erosion and result in the loss of up to 1,675 acres of wildlife habitat, including 51.5 acres of moderately suitable habitat for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The proposed facility would introduce a new visual element to the landscape and would degrade the desired experience of visitors to wilderness and scenic areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110381, 562 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0440 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917565105?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 2 of 15] T2 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 917565100; 15138-1_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 100-megawatt, solar-powered electrical generation facility in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in La Paz County, Arizona is proposed. Quartzsite Solar Energy, LLC (QSE) has submitted an application to the Western Area Power Administration to interconnect the concentrating solar power plant to Westerns transmission system at the Bouse-Kofa 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. In addition, QSE has submitted a right-of-way application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the project facility to be constructed on a total of 1,675 acres of federal land. An amendment to the BLM's Yuma Resource Management Plan would modify visual restrictions for approximately 6,800 acres in order to allow characteristics that are being requested for the energy project. The proposed generation plant, power line and ancillary facilities would be located on the east side of State Route 95 (SR 95) approximately 10 miles north of Quartzsite, Arizona. Project components would include: a 653-foot-tall central receiver and solar collecting tower, up to 17,500 heliostats (mirrors), a conventional steam turbine generator, insulated storage tanks for hot and cold liquid (molten) salt, evaporation ponds, a switchyard, onsite transformers and 161/230-kV electrical substation, a 1.5-mile long 161/230-kV overhead transmission line, a 1.5-mile long overhead line to provide auxiliary power to the project area, an access road from SR 95 to the solar field, water wells and a water supply pipeline. Operational water requirements for the proposed dry-cooled plant would be 200 acre-feet per year. In addition to the applicant's proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and a hybrid-cooled alternative with operational water requirements in the range of 500 to 700 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would be capable of producing 450 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy annually and would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western United States. Construction is expected to provide an average of 280 full-time jobs over a 30-month span. Operation is expected to employ 47 full-time workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would increase the potential for soil erosion and result in the loss of up to 1,675 acres of wildlife habitat, including 51.5 acres of moderately suitable habitat for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The proposed facility would introduce a new visual element to the landscape and would degrade the desired experience of visitors to wilderness and scenic areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110381, 562 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0440 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917565100?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BATON ROUGE LOOP, PARISHES OF ASCENSION, EAST BATON ROUGE, IBERVILLE, LIVINGSTON, AND WEST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 12 of 17] T2 - BATON ROUGE LOOP, PARISHES OF ASCENSION, EAST BATON ROUGE, IBERVILLE, LIVINGSTON, AND WEST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 917565095; 15135-8_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll roadway around Baton Rouge, Louisiana is proposed. The Baton Rouge Loop would extend 90 to 105 miles through the parishes of Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, and West Baton Rouge and would supplement Interstate 12 (I-12) and I-10. Traffic congestion and delays in the five-parish region have steadily worsened over the past 15 years. Traffic flow is restricted at the I-10 and US 190 Mississippi River Bridge crossings, and the lack of convenient alternative routes and system connectivity forces local traffic onto I-10 and I-12, increasing congestion. The Baton Rouge Loop would initially be constructed as a four-lane facility, two 12-foot lanes each direction, with the ability to add at least two additional lanes in the median when traffic demands warrant. The proposed typical roadway section would also provide space within the average 400-foot right-of-way to add continuous frontage roads, if needed, with bike paths and transit potentially sharing the footprint. Sections of the route would be elevated above existing terrain in environmentally sensitive areas. This Tier 1 draft EIS examines a No Build Alternative and a Build Alternative that is composed of thirty-one corridor alternatives in three geographic units. For the North Unit, three of five corridor alternatives are recommended for further input and consideration. In the South Unit, nine of the eighteen corridor alternatives are recommended for exclusion due to issues associated with wetland mitigation banks. For the East Unit, four of eight corridor alternatives are recommended for additional deliberation. Locally preferred corridors include two potential Mississippi River bridge locations. One is north of the present I-10 bridge either in the existing US 190 bridge corridor or five miles north of the US 190 bridge; and the second is south of the existing I-10 bridge either at the Missouri Bend north of Addis or in Iberville Parish between Plaquemine and St. Gabriel. Various corridor alternative options exist through northern Livingston and East Baton Rouge Parishes, and Iberville and Ascension Parishes between the Mississippi and Amite Rivers. System-to-system four-level interchanges would connect the Baton Rouge Loop to I-10 and I-12, and perhaps other major highways such as US 190, US 51, and State Route 1. Other interchanges would vary but would most commonly be diamond-type interchanges. The preliminary capital cost estimate for the Baton Rouge Loop in 2009 dollars is between $4 billion and $4.9 billion. A sensitivity analysis shows that an initial toll rate of $0.15 per mile would maximize revenue generated by the Loop. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facility would reduce congestion and delay on I-10, I-12 and other major arterial corridors. Expanded roadway capacity would address future travel demand, enhance the regional transportation network, and improve the safe movement of people and goods within and through the five-parish project area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact fish and wildlife, including eight threatened and endangered species. Potential secondary development spurred by construction would have a high likelihood of impacting wetland, floodplain, and/or agricultural resources. Approximately one-third of each North Unit corridor alternative is comprised of wetlands, 40 percent is comprised of floodplains, and 34 percent consist of agricultural lands. On average, 56 percent of the area contained within the South Unit corridor alternatives consists of wetlands, 55 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 42 percent consists of agricultural lands. For the East Unit alternatives, 51 percent of the area consists of wetlands, 81 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 9.6 percent consists of agricultural lands. The project area contains numerous community facilities, cultural resources, hazardous waste sites, and oil and gas wells. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110378, Volume 1--496 pages and maps, Volume 2 (Exhibits)--139 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi River KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917565095?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BATON ROUGE LOOP, PARISHES OF ASCENSION, EAST BATON ROUGE, IBERVILLE, LIVINGSTON, AND WEST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 11 of 17] T2 - BATON ROUGE LOOP, PARISHES OF ASCENSION, EAST BATON ROUGE, IBERVILLE, LIVINGSTON, AND WEST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 917565090; 15135-8_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll roadway around Baton Rouge, Louisiana is proposed. The Baton Rouge Loop would extend 90 to 105 miles through the parishes of Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, and West Baton Rouge and would supplement Interstate 12 (I-12) and I-10. Traffic congestion and delays in the five-parish region have steadily worsened over the past 15 years. Traffic flow is restricted at the I-10 and US 190 Mississippi River Bridge crossings, and the lack of convenient alternative routes and system connectivity forces local traffic onto I-10 and I-12, increasing congestion. The Baton Rouge Loop would initially be constructed as a four-lane facility, two 12-foot lanes each direction, with the ability to add at least two additional lanes in the median when traffic demands warrant. The proposed typical roadway section would also provide space within the average 400-foot right-of-way to add continuous frontage roads, if needed, with bike paths and transit potentially sharing the footprint. Sections of the route would be elevated above existing terrain in environmentally sensitive areas. This Tier 1 draft EIS examines a No Build Alternative and a Build Alternative that is composed of thirty-one corridor alternatives in three geographic units. For the North Unit, three of five corridor alternatives are recommended for further input and consideration. In the South Unit, nine of the eighteen corridor alternatives are recommended for exclusion due to issues associated with wetland mitigation banks. For the East Unit, four of eight corridor alternatives are recommended for additional deliberation. Locally preferred corridors include two potential Mississippi River bridge locations. One is north of the present I-10 bridge either in the existing US 190 bridge corridor or five miles north of the US 190 bridge; and the second is south of the existing I-10 bridge either at the Missouri Bend north of Addis or in Iberville Parish between Plaquemine and St. Gabriel. Various corridor alternative options exist through northern Livingston and East Baton Rouge Parishes, and Iberville and Ascension Parishes between the Mississippi and Amite Rivers. System-to-system four-level interchanges would connect the Baton Rouge Loop to I-10 and I-12, and perhaps other major highways such as US 190, US 51, and State Route 1. Other interchanges would vary but would most commonly be diamond-type interchanges. The preliminary capital cost estimate for the Baton Rouge Loop in 2009 dollars is between $4 billion and $4.9 billion. A sensitivity analysis shows that an initial toll rate of $0.15 per mile would maximize revenue generated by the Loop. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facility would reduce congestion and delay on I-10, I-12 and other major arterial corridors. Expanded roadway capacity would address future travel demand, enhance the regional transportation network, and improve the safe movement of people and goods within and through the five-parish project area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact fish and wildlife, including eight threatened and endangered species. Potential secondary development spurred by construction would have a high likelihood of impacting wetland, floodplain, and/or agricultural resources. Approximately one-third of each North Unit corridor alternative is comprised of wetlands, 40 percent is comprised of floodplains, and 34 percent consist of agricultural lands. On average, 56 percent of the area contained within the South Unit corridor alternatives consists of wetlands, 55 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 42 percent consists of agricultural lands. For the East Unit alternatives, 51 percent of the area consists of wetlands, 81 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 9.6 percent consists of agricultural lands. The project area contains numerous community facilities, cultural resources, hazardous waste sites, and oil and gas wells. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110378, Volume 1--496 pages and maps, Volume 2 (Exhibits)--139 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi River KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917565090?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BATON ROUGE LOOP, PARISHES OF ASCENSION, EAST BATON ROUGE, IBERVILLE, LIVINGSTON, AND WEST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 10 of 17] T2 - BATON ROUGE LOOP, PARISHES OF ASCENSION, EAST BATON ROUGE, IBERVILLE, LIVINGSTON, AND WEST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 917565085; 15135-8_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll roadway around Baton Rouge, Louisiana is proposed. The Baton Rouge Loop would extend 90 to 105 miles through the parishes of Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, and West Baton Rouge and would supplement Interstate 12 (I-12) and I-10. Traffic congestion and delays in the five-parish region have steadily worsened over the past 15 years. Traffic flow is restricted at the I-10 and US 190 Mississippi River Bridge crossings, and the lack of convenient alternative routes and system connectivity forces local traffic onto I-10 and I-12, increasing congestion. The Baton Rouge Loop would initially be constructed as a four-lane facility, two 12-foot lanes each direction, with the ability to add at least two additional lanes in the median when traffic demands warrant. The proposed typical roadway section would also provide space within the average 400-foot right-of-way to add continuous frontage roads, if needed, with bike paths and transit potentially sharing the footprint. Sections of the route would be elevated above existing terrain in environmentally sensitive areas. This Tier 1 draft EIS examines a No Build Alternative and a Build Alternative that is composed of thirty-one corridor alternatives in three geographic units. For the North Unit, three of five corridor alternatives are recommended for further input and consideration. In the South Unit, nine of the eighteen corridor alternatives are recommended for exclusion due to issues associated with wetland mitigation banks. For the East Unit, four of eight corridor alternatives are recommended for additional deliberation. Locally preferred corridors include two potential Mississippi River bridge locations. One is north of the present I-10 bridge either in the existing US 190 bridge corridor or five miles north of the US 190 bridge; and the second is south of the existing I-10 bridge either at the Missouri Bend north of Addis or in Iberville Parish between Plaquemine and St. Gabriel. Various corridor alternative options exist through northern Livingston and East Baton Rouge Parishes, and Iberville and Ascension Parishes between the Mississippi and Amite Rivers. System-to-system four-level interchanges would connect the Baton Rouge Loop to I-10 and I-12, and perhaps other major highways such as US 190, US 51, and State Route 1. Other interchanges would vary but would most commonly be diamond-type interchanges. The preliminary capital cost estimate for the Baton Rouge Loop in 2009 dollars is between $4 billion and $4.9 billion. A sensitivity analysis shows that an initial toll rate of $0.15 per mile would maximize revenue generated by the Loop. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facility would reduce congestion and delay on I-10, I-12 and other major arterial corridors. Expanded roadway capacity would address future travel demand, enhance the regional transportation network, and improve the safe movement of people and goods within and through the five-parish project area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact fish and wildlife, including eight threatened and endangered species. Potential secondary development spurred by construction would have a high likelihood of impacting wetland, floodplain, and/or agricultural resources. Approximately one-third of each North Unit corridor alternative is comprised of wetlands, 40 percent is comprised of floodplains, and 34 percent consist of agricultural lands. On average, 56 percent of the area contained within the South Unit corridor alternatives consists of wetlands, 55 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 42 percent consists of agricultural lands. For the East Unit alternatives, 51 percent of the area consists of wetlands, 81 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 9.6 percent consists of agricultural lands. The project area contains numerous community facilities, cultural resources, hazardous waste sites, and oil and gas wells. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110378, Volume 1--496 pages and maps, Volume 2 (Exhibits)--139 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi River KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917565085?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BATON ROUGE LOOP, PARISHES OF ASCENSION, EAST BATON ROUGE, IBERVILLE, LIVINGSTON, AND WEST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 9 of 17] T2 - BATON ROUGE LOOP, PARISHES OF ASCENSION, EAST BATON ROUGE, IBERVILLE, LIVINGSTON, AND WEST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 917565078; 15135-8_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll roadway around Baton Rouge, Louisiana is proposed. The Baton Rouge Loop would extend 90 to 105 miles through the parishes of Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, and West Baton Rouge and would supplement Interstate 12 (I-12) and I-10. Traffic congestion and delays in the five-parish region have steadily worsened over the past 15 years. Traffic flow is restricted at the I-10 and US 190 Mississippi River Bridge crossings, and the lack of convenient alternative routes and system connectivity forces local traffic onto I-10 and I-12, increasing congestion. The Baton Rouge Loop would initially be constructed as a four-lane facility, two 12-foot lanes each direction, with the ability to add at least two additional lanes in the median when traffic demands warrant. The proposed typical roadway section would also provide space within the average 400-foot right-of-way to add continuous frontage roads, if needed, with bike paths and transit potentially sharing the footprint. Sections of the route would be elevated above existing terrain in environmentally sensitive areas. This Tier 1 draft EIS examines a No Build Alternative and a Build Alternative that is composed of thirty-one corridor alternatives in three geographic units. For the North Unit, three of five corridor alternatives are recommended for further input and consideration. In the South Unit, nine of the eighteen corridor alternatives are recommended for exclusion due to issues associated with wetland mitigation banks. For the East Unit, four of eight corridor alternatives are recommended for additional deliberation. Locally preferred corridors include two potential Mississippi River bridge locations. One is north of the present I-10 bridge either in the existing US 190 bridge corridor or five miles north of the US 190 bridge; and the second is south of the existing I-10 bridge either at the Missouri Bend north of Addis or in Iberville Parish between Plaquemine and St. Gabriel. Various corridor alternative options exist through northern Livingston and East Baton Rouge Parishes, and Iberville and Ascension Parishes between the Mississippi and Amite Rivers. System-to-system four-level interchanges would connect the Baton Rouge Loop to I-10 and I-12, and perhaps other major highways such as US 190, US 51, and State Route 1. Other interchanges would vary but would most commonly be diamond-type interchanges. The preliminary capital cost estimate for the Baton Rouge Loop in 2009 dollars is between $4 billion and $4.9 billion. A sensitivity analysis shows that an initial toll rate of $0.15 per mile would maximize revenue generated by the Loop. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facility would reduce congestion and delay on I-10, I-12 and other major arterial corridors. Expanded roadway capacity would address future travel demand, enhance the regional transportation network, and improve the safe movement of people and goods within and through the five-parish project area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact fish and wildlife, including eight threatened and endangered species. Potential secondary development spurred by construction would have a high likelihood of impacting wetland, floodplain, and/or agricultural resources. Approximately one-third of each North Unit corridor alternative is comprised of wetlands, 40 percent is comprised of floodplains, and 34 percent consist of agricultural lands. On average, 56 percent of the area contained within the South Unit corridor alternatives consists of wetlands, 55 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 42 percent consists of agricultural lands. For the East Unit alternatives, 51 percent of the area consists of wetlands, 81 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 9.6 percent consists of agricultural lands. The project area contains numerous community facilities, cultural resources, hazardous waste sites, and oil and gas wells. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110378, Volume 1--496 pages and maps, Volume 2 (Exhibits)--139 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi River KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917565078?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BATON ROUGE LOOP, PARISHES OF ASCENSION, EAST BATON ROUGE, IBERVILLE, LIVINGSTON, AND WEST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 8 of 17] T2 - BATON ROUGE LOOP, PARISHES OF ASCENSION, EAST BATON ROUGE, IBERVILLE, LIVINGSTON, AND WEST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 917565071; 15135-8_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll roadway around Baton Rouge, Louisiana is proposed. The Baton Rouge Loop would extend 90 to 105 miles through the parishes of Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, and West Baton Rouge and would supplement Interstate 12 (I-12) and I-10. Traffic congestion and delays in the five-parish region have steadily worsened over the past 15 years. Traffic flow is restricted at the I-10 and US 190 Mississippi River Bridge crossings, and the lack of convenient alternative routes and system connectivity forces local traffic onto I-10 and I-12, increasing congestion. The Baton Rouge Loop would initially be constructed as a four-lane facility, two 12-foot lanes each direction, with the ability to add at least two additional lanes in the median when traffic demands warrant. The proposed typical roadway section would also provide space within the average 400-foot right-of-way to add continuous frontage roads, if needed, with bike paths and transit potentially sharing the footprint. Sections of the route would be elevated above existing terrain in environmentally sensitive areas. This Tier 1 draft EIS examines a No Build Alternative and a Build Alternative that is composed of thirty-one corridor alternatives in three geographic units. For the North Unit, three of five corridor alternatives are recommended for further input and consideration. In the South Unit, nine of the eighteen corridor alternatives are recommended for exclusion due to issues associated with wetland mitigation banks. For the East Unit, four of eight corridor alternatives are recommended for additional deliberation. Locally preferred corridors include two potential Mississippi River bridge locations. One is north of the present I-10 bridge either in the existing US 190 bridge corridor or five miles north of the US 190 bridge; and the second is south of the existing I-10 bridge either at the Missouri Bend north of Addis or in Iberville Parish between Plaquemine and St. Gabriel. Various corridor alternative options exist through northern Livingston and East Baton Rouge Parishes, and Iberville and Ascension Parishes between the Mississippi and Amite Rivers. System-to-system four-level interchanges would connect the Baton Rouge Loop to I-10 and I-12, and perhaps other major highways such as US 190, US 51, and State Route 1. Other interchanges would vary but would most commonly be diamond-type interchanges. The preliminary capital cost estimate for the Baton Rouge Loop in 2009 dollars is between $4 billion and $4.9 billion. A sensitivity analysis shows that an initial toll rate of $0.15 per mile would maximize revenue generated by the Loop. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facility would reduce congestion and delay on I-10, I-12 and other major arterial corridors. Expanded roadway capacity would address future travel demand, enhance the regional transportation network, and improve the safe movement of people and goods within and through the five-parish project area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact fish and wildlife, including eight threatened and endangered species. Potential secondary development spurred by construction would have a high likelihood of impacting wetland, floodplain, and/or agricultural resources. Approximately one-third of each North Unit corridor alternative is comprised of wetlands, 40 percent is comprised of floodplains, and 34 percent consist of agricultural lands. On average, 56 percent of the area contained within the South Unit corridor alternatives consists of wetlands, 55 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 42 percent consists of agricultural lands. For the East Unit alternatives, 51 percent of the area consists of wetlands, 81 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 9.6 percent consists of agricultural lands. The project area contains numerous community facilities, cultural resources, hazardous waste sites, and oil and gas wells. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110378, Volume 1--496 pages and maps, Volume 2 (Exhibits)--139 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi River KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917565071?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BATON ROUGE LOOP, PARISHES OF ASCENSION, EAST BATON ROUGE, IBERVILLE, LIVINGSTON, AND WEST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 7 of 17] T2 - BATON ROUGE LOOP, PARISHES OF ASCENSION, EAST BATON ROUGE, IBERVILLE, LIVINGSTON, AND WEST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 917565065; 15135-8_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll roadway around Baton Rouge, Louisiana is proposed. The Baton Rouge Loop would extend 90 to 105 miles through the parishes of Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, and West Baton Rouge and would supplement Interstate 12 (I-12) and I-10. Traffic congestion and delays in the five-parish region have steadily worsened over the past 15 years. Traffic flow is restricted at the I-10 and US 190 Mississippi River Bridge crossings, and the lack of convenient alternative routes and system connectivity forces local traffic onto I-10 and I-12, increasing congestion. The Baton Rouge Loop would initially be constructed as a four-lane facility, two 12-foot lanes each direction, with the ability to add at least two additional lanes in the median when traffic demands warrant. The proposed typical roadway section would also provide space within the average 400-foot right-of-way to add continuous frontage roads, if needed, with bike paths and transit potentially sharing the footprint. Sections of the route would be elevated above existing terrain in environmentally sensitive areas. This Tier 1 draft EIS examines a No Build Alternative and a Build Alternative that is composed of thirty-one corridor alternatives in three geographic units. For the North Unit, three of five corridor alternatives are recommended for further input and consideration. In the South Unit, nine of the eighteen corridor alternatives are recommended for exclusion due to issues associated with wetland mitigation banks. For the East Unit, four of eight corridor alternatives are recommended for additional deliberation. Locally preferred corridors include two potential Mississippi River bridge locations. One is north of the present I-10 bridge either in the existing US 190 bridge corridor or five miles north of the US 190 bridge; and the second is south of the existing I-10 bridge either at the Missouri Bend north of Addis or in Iberville Parish between Plaquemine and St. Gabriel. Various corridor alternative options exist through northern Livingston and East Baton Rouge Parishes, and Iberville and Ascension Parishes between the Mississippi and Amite Rivers. System-to-system four-level interchanges would connect the Baton Rouge Loop to I-10 and I-12, and perhaps other major highways such as US 190, US 51, and State Route 1. Other interchanges would vary but would most commonly be diamond-type interchanges. The preliminary capital cost estimate for the Baton Rouge Loop in 2009 dollars is between $4 billion and $4.9 billion. A sensitivity analysis shows that an initial toll rate of $0.15 per mile would maximize revenue generated by the Loop. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facility would reduce congestion and delay on I-10, I-12 and other major arterial corridors. Expanded roadway capacity would address future travel demand, enhance the regional transportation network, and improve the safe movement of people and goods within and through the five-parish project area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact fish and wildlife, including eight threatened and endangered species. Potential secondary development spurred by construction would have a high likelihood of impacting wetland, floodplain, and/or agricultural resources. Approximately one-third of each North Unit corridor alternative is comprised of wetlands, 40 percent is comprised of floodplains, and 34 percent consist of agricultural lands. On average, 56 percent of the area contained within the South Unit corridor alternatives consists of wetlands, 55 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 42 percent consists of agricultural lands. For the East Unit alternatives, 51 percent of the area consists of wetlands, 81 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 9.6 percent consists of agricultural lands. The project area contains numerous community facilities, cultural resources, hazardous waste sites, and oil and gas wells. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110378, Volume 1--496 pages and maps, Volume 2 (Exhibits)--139 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi River KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917565065?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BATON ROUGE LOOP, PARISHES OF ASCENSION, EAST BATON ROUGE, IBERVILLE, LIVINGSTON, AND WEST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 6 of 17] T2 - BATON ROUGE LOOP, PARISHES OF ASCENSION, EAST BATON ROUGE, IBERVILLE, LIVINGSTON, AND WEST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 917565061; 15135-8_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll roadway around Baton Rouge, Louisiana is proposed. The Baton Rouge Loop would extend 90 to 105 miles through the parishes of Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, and West Baton Rouge and would supplement Interstate 12 (I-12) and I-10. Traffic congestion and delays in the five-parish region have steadily worsened over the past 15 years. Traffic flow is restricted at the I-10 and US 190 Mississippi River Bridge crossings, and the lack of convenient alternative routes and system connectivity forces local traffic onto I-10 and I-12, increasing congestion. The Baton Rouge Loop would initially be constructed as a four-lane facility, two 12-foot lanes each direction, with the ability to add at least two additional lanes in the median when traffic demands warrant. The proposed typical roadway section would also provide space within the average 400-foot right-of-way to add continuous frontage roads, if needed, with bike paths and transit potentially sharing the footprint. Sections of the route would be elevated above existing terrain in environmentally sensitive areas. This Tier 1 draft EIS examines a No Build Alternative and a Build Alternative that is composed of thirty-one corridor alternatives in three geographic units. For the North Unit, three of five corridor alternatives are recommended for further input and consideration. In the South Unit, nine of the eighteen corridor alternatives are recommended for exclusion due to issues associated with wetland mitigation banks. For the East Unit, four of eight corridor alternatives are recommended for additional deliberation. Locally preferred corridors include two potential Mississippi River bridge locations. One is north of the present I-10 bridge either in the existing US 190 bridge corridor or five miles north of the US 190 bridge; and the second is south of the existing I-10 bridge either at the Missouri Bend north of Addis or in Iberville Parish between Plaquemine and St. Gabriel. Various corridor alternative options exist through northern Livingston and East Baton Rouge Parishes, and Iberville and Ascension Parishes between the Mississippi and Amite Rivers. System-to-system four-level interchanges would connect the Baton Rouge Loop to I-10 and I-12, and perhaps other major highways such as US 190, US 51, and State Route 1. Other interchanges would vary but would most commonly be diamond-type interchanges. The preliminary capital cost estimate for the Baton Rouge Loop in 2009 dollars is between $4 billion and $4.9 billion. A sensitivity analysis shows that an initial toll rate of $0.15 per mile would maximize revenue generated by the Loop. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facility would reduce congestion and delay on I-10, I-12 and other major arterial corridors. Expanded roadway capacity would address future travel demand, enhance the regional transportation network, and improve the safe movement of people and goods within and through the five-parish project area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact fish and wildlife, including eight threatened and endangered species. Potential secondary development spurred by construction would have a high likelihood of impacting wetland, floodplain, and/or agricultural resources. Approximately one-third of each North Unit corridor alternative is comprised of wetlands, 40 percent is comprised of floodplains, and 34 percent consist of agricultural lands. On average, 56 percent of the area contained within the South Unit corridor alternatives consists of wetlands, 55 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 42 percent consists of agricultural lands. For the East Unit alternatives, 51 percent of the area consists of wetlands, 81 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 9.6 percent consists of agricultural lands. The project area contains numerous community facilities, cultural resources, hazardous waste sites, and oil and gas wells. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110378, Volume 1--496 pages and maps, Volume 2 (Exhibits)--139 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi River KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917565061?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BATON ROUGE LOOP, PARISHES OF ASCENSION, EAST BATON ROUGE, IBERVILLE, LIVINGSTON, AND WEST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 5 of 17] T2 - BATON ROUGE LOOP, PARISHES OF ASCENSION, EAST BATON ROUGE, IBERVILLE, LIVINGSTON, AND WEST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 917565057; 15135-8_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll roadway around Baton Rouge, Louisiana is proposed. The Baton Rouge Loop would extend 90 to 105 miles through the parishes of Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, and West Baton Rouge and would supplement Interstate 12 (I-12) and I-10. Traffic congestion and delays in the five-parish region have steadily worsened over the past 15 years. Traffic flow is restricted at the I-10 and US 190 Mississippi River Bridge crossings, and the lack of convenient alternative routes and system connectivity forces local traffic onto I-10 and I-12, increasing congestion. The Baton Rouge Loop would initially be constructed as a four-lane facility, two 12-foot lanes each direction, with the ability to add at least two additional lanes in the median when traffic demands warrant. The proposed typical roadway section would also provide space within the average 400-foot right-of-way to add continuous frontage roads, if needed, with bike paths and transit potentially sharing the footprint. Sections of the route would be elevated above existing terrain in environmentally sensitive areas. This Tier 1 draft EIS examines a No Build Alternative and a Build Alternative that is composed of thirty-one corridor alternatives in three geographic units. For the North Unit, three of five corridor alternatives are recommended for further input and consideration. In the South Unit, nine of the eighteen corridor alternatives are recommended for exclusion due to issues associated with wetland mitigation banks. For the East Unit, four of eight corridor alternatives are recommended for additional deliberation. Locally preferred corridors include two potential Mississippi River bridge locations. One is north of the present I-10 bridge either in the existing US 190 bridge corridor or five miles north of the US 190 bridge; and the second is south of the existing I-10 bridge either at the Missouri Bend north of Addis or in Iberville Parish between Plaquemine and St. Gabriel. Various corridor alternative options exist through northern Livingston and East Baton Rouge Parishes, and Iberville and Ascension Parishes between the Mississippi and Amite Rivers. System-to-system four-level interchanges would connect the Baton Rouge Loop to I-10 and I-12, and perhaps other major highways such as US 190, US 51, and State Route 1. Other interchanges would vary but would most commonly be diamond-type interchanges. The preliminary capital cost estimate for the Baton Rouge Loop in 2009 dollars is between $4 billion and $4.9 billion. A sensitivity analysis shows that an initial toll rate of $0.15 per mile would maximize revenue generated by the Loop. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facility would reduce congestion and delay on I-10, I-12 and other major arterial corridors. Expanded roadway capacity would address future travel demand, enhance the regional transportation network, and improve the safe movement of people and goods within and through the five-parish project area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact fish and wildlife, including eight threatened and endangered species. Potential secondary development spurred by construction would have a high likelihood of impacting wetland, floodplain, and/or agricultural resources. Approximately one-third of each North Unit corridor alternative is comprised of wetlands, 40 percent is comprised of floodplains, and 34 percent consist of agricultural lands. On average, 56 percent of the area contained within the South Unit corridor alternatives consists of wetlands, 55 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 42 percent consists of agricultural lands. For the East Unit alternatives, 51 percent of the area consists of wetlands, 81 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 9.6 percent consists of agricultural lands. The project area contains numerous community facilities, cultural resources, hazardous waste sites, and oil and gas wells. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110378, Volume 1--496 pages and maps, Volume 2 (Exhibits)--139 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi River KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917565057?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BATON ROUGE LOOP, PARISHES OF ASCENSION, EAST BATON ROUGE, IBERVILLE, LIVINGSTON, AND WEST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 4 of 17] T2 - BATON ROUGE LOOP, PARISHES OF ASCENSION, EAST BATON ROUGE, IBERVILLE, LIVINGSTON, AND WEST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 917565052; 15135-8_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll roadway around Baton Rouge, Louisiana is proposed. The Baton Rouge Loop would extend 90 to 105 miles through the parishes of Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, and West Baton Rouge and would supplement Interstate 12 (I-12) and I-10. Traffic congestion and delays in the five-parish region have steadily worsened over the past 15 years. Traffic flow is restricted at the I-10 and US 190 Mississippi River Bridge crossings, and the lack of convenient alternative routes and system connectivity forces local traffic onto I-10 and I-12, increasing congestion. The Baton Rouge Loop would initially be constructed as a four-lane facility, two 12-foot lanes each direction, with the ability to add at least two additional lanes in the median when traffic demands warrant. The proposed typical roadway section would also provide space within the average 400-foot right-of-way to add continuous frontage roads, if needed, with bike paths and transit potentially sharing the footprint. Sections of the route would be elevated above existing terrain in environmentally sensitive areas. This Tier 1 draft EIS examines a No Build Alternative and a Build Alternative that is composed of thirty-one corridor alternatives in three geographic units. For the North Unit, three of five corridor alternatives are recommended for further input and consideration. In the South Unit, nine of the eighteen corridor alternatives are recommended for exclusion due to issues associated with wetland mitigation banks. For the East Unit, four of eight corridor alternatives are recommended for additional deliberation. Locally preferred corridors include two potential Mississippi River bridge locations. One is north of the present I-10 bridge either in the existing US 190 bridge corridor or five miles north of the US 190 bridge; and the second is south of the existing I-10 bridge either at the Missouri Bend north of Addis or in Iberville Parish between Plaquemine and St. Gabriel. Various corridor alternative options exist through northern Livingston and East Baton Rouge Parishes, and Iberville and Ascension Parishes between the Mississippi and Amite Rivers. System-to-system four-level interchanges would connect the Baton Rouge Loop to I-10 and I-12, and perhaps other major highways such as US 190, US 51, and State Route 1. Other interchanges would vary but would most commonly be diamond-type interchanges. The preliminary capital cost estimate for the Baton Rouge Loop in 2009 dollars is between $4 billion and $4.9 billion. A sensitivity analysis shows that an initial toll rate of $0.15 per mile would maximize revenue generated by the Loop. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facility would reduce congestion and delay on I-10, I-12 and other major arterial corridors. Expanded roadway capacity would address future travel demand, enhance the regional transportation network, and improve the safe movement of people and goods within and through the five-parish project area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact fish and wildlife, including eight threatened and endangered species. Potential secondary development spurred by construction would have a high likelihood of impacting wetland, floodplain, and/or agricultural resources. Approximately one-third of each North Unit corridor alternative is comprised of wetlands, 40 percent is comprised of floodplains, and 34 percent consist of agricultural lands. On average, 56 percent of the area contained within the South Unit corridor alternatives consists of wetlands, 55 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 42 percent consists of agricultural lands. For the East Unit alternatives, 51 percent of the area consists of wetlands, 81 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 9.6 percent consists of agricultural lands. The project area contains numerous community facilities, cultural resources, hazardous waste sites, and oil and gas wells. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110378, Volume 1--496 pages and maps, Volume 2 (Exhibits)--139 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi River KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917565052?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BATON ROUGE LOOP, PARISHES OF ASCENSION, EAST BATON ROUGE, IBERVILLE, LIVINGSTON, AND WEST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 3 of 17] T2 - BATON ROUGE LOOP, PARISHES OF ASCENSION, EAST BATON ROUGE, IBERVILLE, LIVINGSTON, AND WEST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 917565049; 15135-8_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll roadway around Baton Rouge, Louisiana is proposed. The Baton Rouge Loop would extend 90 to 105 miles through the parishes of Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, and West Baton Rouge and would supplement Interstate 12 (I-12) and I-10. Traffic congestion and delays in the five-parish region have steadily worsened over the past 15 years. Traffic flow is restricted at the I-10 and US 190 Mississippi River Bridge crossings, and the lack of convenient alternative routes and system connectivity forces local traffic onto I-10 and I-12, increasing congestion. The Baton Rouge Loop would initially be constructed as a four-lane facility, two 12-foot lanes each direction, with the ability to add at least two additional lanes in the median when traffic demands warrant. The proposed typical roadway section would also provide space within the average 400-foot right-of-way to add continuous frontage roads, if needed, with bike paths and transit potentially sharing the footprint. Sections of the route would be elevated above existing terrain in environmentally sensitive areas. This Tier 1 draft EIS examines a No Build Alternative and a Build Alternative that is composed of thirty-one corridor alternatives in three geographic units. For the North Unit, three of five corridor alternatives are recommended for further input and consideration. In the South Unit, nine of the eighteen corridor alternatives are recommended for exclusion due to issues associated with wetland mitigation banks. For the East Unit, four of eight corridor alternatives are recommended for additional deliberation. Locally preferred corridors include two potential Mississippi River bridge locations. One is north of the present I-10 bridge either in the existing US 190 bridge corridor or five miles north of the US 190 bridge; and the second is south of the existing I-10 bridge either at the Missouri Bend north of Addis or in Iberville Parish between Plaquemine and St. Gabriel. Various corridor alternative options exist through northern Livingston and East Baton Rouge Parishes, and Iberville and Ascension Parishes between the Mississippi and Amite Rivers. System-to-system four-level interchanges would connect the Baton Rouge Loop to I-10 and I-12, and perhaps other major highways such as US 190, US 51, and State Route 1. Other interchanges would vary but would most commonly be diamond-type interchanges. The preliminary capital cost estimate for the Baton Rouge Loop in 2009 dollars is between $4 billion and $4.9 billion. A sensitivity analysis shows that an initial toll rate of $0.15 per mile would maximize revenue generated by the Loop. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facility would reduce congestion and delay on I-10, I-12 and other major arterial corridors. Expanded roadway capacity would address future travel demand, enhance the regional transportation network, and improve the safe movement of people and goods within and through the five-parish project area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact fish and wildlife, including eight threatened and endangered species. Potential secondary development spurred by construction would have a high likelihood of impacting wetland, floodplain, and/or agricultural resources. Approximately one-third of each North Unit corridor alternative is comprised of wetlands, 40 percent is comprised of floodplains, and 34 percent consist of agricultural lands. On average, 56 percent of the area contained within the South Unit corridor alternatives consists of wetlands, 55 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 42 percent consists of agricultural lands. For the East Unit alternatives, 51 percent of the area consists of wetlands, 81 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 9.6 percent consists of agricultural lands. The project area contains numerous community facilities, cultural resources, hazardous waste sites, and oil and gas wells. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110378, Volume 1--496 pages and maps, Volume 2 (Exhibits)--139 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi River KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917565049?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BATON ROUGE LOOP, PARISHES OF ASCENSION, EAST BATON ROUGE, IBERVILLE, LIVINGSTON, AND WEST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 2 of 17] T2 - BATON ROUGE LOOP, PARISHES OF ASCENSION, EAST BATON ROUGE, IBERVILLE, LIVINGSTON, AND WEST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 917564223; 15135-8_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll roadway around Baton Rouge, Louisiana is proposed. The Baton Rouge Loop would extend 90 to 105 miles through the parishes of Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, and West Baton Rouge and would supplement Interstate 12 (I-12) and I-10. Traffic congestion and delays in the five-parish region have steadily worsened over the past 15 years. Traffic flow is restricted at the I-10 and US 190 Mississippi River Bridge crossings, and the lack of convenient alternative routes and system connectivity forces local traffic onto I-10 and I-12, increasing congestion. The Baton Rouge Loop would initially be constructed as a four-lane facility, two 12-foot lanes each direction, with the ability to add at least two additional lanes in the median when traffic demands warrant. The proposed typical roadway section would also provide space within the average 400-foot right-of-way to add continuous frontage roads, if needed, with bike paths and transit potentially sharing the footprint. Sections of the route would be elevated above existing terrain in environmentally sensitive areas. This Tier 1 draft EIS examines a No Build Alternative and a Build Alternative that is composed of thirty-one corridor alternatives in three geographic units. For the North Unit, three of five corridor alternatives are recommended for further input and consideration. In the South Unit, nine of the eighteen corridor alternatives are recommended for exclusion due to issues associated with wetland mitigation banks. For the East Unit, four of eight corridor alternatives are recommended for additional deliberation. Locally preferred corridors include two potential Mississippi River bridge locations. One is north of the present I-10 bridge either in the existing US 190 bridge corridor or five miles north of the US 190 bridge; and the second is south of the existing I-10 bridge either at the Missouri Bend north of Addis or in Iberville Parish between Plaquemine and St. Gabriel. Various corridor alternative options exist through northern Livingston and East Baton Rouge Parishes, and Iberville and Ascension Parishes between the Mississippi and Amite Rivers. System-to-system four-level interchanges would connect the Baton Rouge Loop to I-10 and I-12, and perhaps other major highways such as US 190, US 51, and State Route 1. Other interchanges would vary but would most commonly be diamond-type interchanges. The preliminary capital cost estimate for the Baton Rouge Loop in 2009 dollars is between $4 billion and $4.9 billion. A sensitivity analysis shows that an initial toll rate of $0.15 per mile would maximize revenue generated by the Loop. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facility would reduce congestion and delay on I-10, I-12 and other major arterial corridors. Expanded roadway capacity would address future travel demand, enhance the regional transportation network, and improve the safe movement of people and goods within and through the five-parish project area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact fish and wildlife, including eight threatened and endangered species. Potential secondary development spurred by construction would have a high likelihood of impacting wetland, floodplain, and/or agricultural resources. Approximately one-third of each North Unit corridor alternative is comprised of wetlands, 40 percent is comprised of floodplains, and 34 percent consist of agricultural lands. On average, 56 percent of the area contained within the South Unit corridor alternatives consists of wetlands, 55 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 42 percent consists of agricultural lands. For the East Unit alternatives, 51 percent of the area consists of wetlands, 81 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 9.6 percent consists of agricultural lands. The project area contains numerous community facilities, cultural resources, hazardous waste sites, and oil and gas wells. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110378, Volume 1--496 pages and maps, Volume 2 (Exhibits)--139 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi River KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917564223?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BATON ROUGE LOOP, PARISHES OF ASCENSION, EAST BATON ROUGE, IBERVILLE, LIVINGSTON, AND WEST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 1 of 17] T2 - BATON ROUGE LOOP, PARISHES OF ASCENSION, EAST BATON ROUGE, IBERVILLE, LIVINGSTON, AND WEST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 917564220; 15135-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll roadway around Baton Rouge, Louisiana is proposed. The Baton Rouge Loop would extend 90 to 105 miles through the parishes of Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, and West Baton Rouge and would supplement Interstate 12 (I-12) and I-10. Traffic congestion and delays in the five-parish region have steadily worsened over the past 15 years. Traffic flow is restricted at the I-10 and US 190 Mississippi River Bridge crossings, and the lack of convenient alternative routes and system connectivity forces local traffic onto I-10 and I-12, increasing congestion. The Baton Rouge Loop would initially be constructed as a four-lane facility, two 12-foot lanes each direction, with the ability to add at least two additional lanes in the median when traffic demands warrant. The proposed typical roadway section would also provide space within the average 400-foot right-of-way to add continuous frontage roads, if needed, with bike paths and transit potentially sharing the footprint. Sections of the route would be elevated above existing terrain in environmentally sensitive areas. This Tier 1 draft EIS examines a No Build Alternative and a Build Alternative that is composed of thirty-one corridor alternatives in three geographic units. For the North Unit, three of five corridor alternatives are recommended for further input and consideration. In the South Unit, nine of the eighteen corridor alternatives are recommended for exclusion due to issues associated with wetland mitigation banks. For the East Unit, four of eight corridor alternatives are recommended for additional deliberation. Locally preferred corridors include two potential Mississippi River bridge locations. One is north of the present I-10 bridge either in the existing US 190 bridge corridor or five miles north of the US 190 bridge; and the second is south of the existing I-10 bridge either at the Missouri Bend north of Addis or in Iberville Parish between Plaquemine and St. Gabriel. Various corridor alternative options exist through northern Livingston and East Baton Rouge Parishes, and Iberville and Ascension Parishes between the Mississippi and Amite Rivers. System-to-system four-level interchanges would connect the Baton Rouge Loop to I-10 and I-12, and perhaps other major highways such as US 190, US 51, and State Route 1. Other interchanges would vary but would most commonly be diamond-type interchanges. The preliminary capital cost estimate for the Baton Rouge Loop in 2009 dollars is between $4 billion and $4.9 billion. A sensitivity analysis shows that an initial toll rate of $0.15 per mile would maximize revenue generated by the Loop. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facility would reduce congestion and delay on I-10, I-12 and other major arterial corridors. Expanded roadway capacity would address future travel demand, enhance the regional transportation network, and improve the safe movement of people and goods within and through the five-parish project area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact fish and wildlife, including eight threatened and endangered species. Potential secondary development spurred by construction would have a high likelihood of impacting wetland, floodplain, and/or agricultural resources. Approximately one-third of each North Unit corridor alternative is comprised of wetlands, 40 percent is comprised of floodplains, and 34 percent consist of agricultural lands. On average, 56 percent of the area contained within the South Unit corridor alternatives consists of wetlands, 55 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 42 percent consists of agricultural lands. For the East Unit alternatives, 51 percent of the area consists of wetlands, 81 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 9.6 percent consists of agricultural lands. The project area contains numerous community facilities, cultural resources, hazardous waste sites, and oil and gas wells. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110378, Volume 1--496 pages and maps, Volume 2 (Exhibits)--139 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi River KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917564220?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BATON ROUGE LOOP, PARISHES OF ASCENSION, EAST BATON ROUGE, IBERVILLE, LIVINGSTON, AND WEST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 916143376; 15135 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll roadway around Baton Rouge, Louisiana is proposed. The Baton Rouge Loop would extend 90 to 105 miles through the parishes of Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, and West Baton Rouge and would supplement Interstate 12 (I-12) and I-10. Traffic congestion and delays in the five-parish region have steadily worsened over the past 15 years. Traffic flow is restricted at the I-10 and US 190 Mississippi River Bridge crossings, and the lack of convenient alternative routes and system connectivity forces local traffic onto I-10 and I-12, increasing congestion. The Baton Rouge Loop would initially be constructed as a four-lane facility, two 12-foot lanes each direction, with the ability to add at least two additional lanes in the median when traffic demands warrant. The proposed typical roadway section would also provide space within the average 400-foot right-of-way to add continuous frontage roads, if needed, with bike paths and transit potentially sharing the footprint. Sections of the route would be elevated above existing terrain in environmentally sensitive areas. This Tier 1 draft EIS examines a No Build Alternative and a Build Alternative that is composed of thirty-one corridor alternatives in three geographic units. For the North Unit, three of five corridor alternatives are recommended for further input and consideration. In the South Unit, nine of the eighteen corridor alternatives are recommended for exclusion due to issues associated with wetland mitigation banks. For the East Unit, four of eight corridor alternatives are recommended for additional deliberation. Locally preferred corridors include two potential Mississippi River bridge locations. One is north of the present I-10 bridge either in the existing US 190 bridge corridor or five miles north of the US 190 bridge; and the second is south of the existing I-10 bridge either at the Missouri Bend north of Addis or in Iberville Parish between Plaquemine and St. Gabriel. Various corridor alternative options exist through northern Livingston and East Baton Rouge Parishes, and Iberville and Ascension Parishes between the Mississippi and Amite Rivers. System-to-system four-level interchanges would connect the Baton Rouge Loop to I-10 and I-12, and perhaps other major highways such as US 190, US 51, and State Route 1. Other interchanges would vary but would most commonly be diamond-type interchanges. The preliminary capital cost estimate for the Baton Rouge Loop in 2009 dollars is between $4 billion and $4.9 billion. A sensitivity analysis shows that an initial toll rate of $0.15 per mile would maximize revenue generated by the Loop. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facility would reduce congestion and delay on I-10, I-12 and other major arterial corridors. Expanded roadway capacity would address future travel demand, enhance the regional transportation network, and improve the safe movement of people and goods within and through the five-parish project area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact fish and wildlife, including eight threatened and endangered species. Potential secondary development spurred by construction would have a high likelihood of impacting wetland, floodplain, and/or agricultural resources. Approximately one-third of each North Unit corridor alternative is comprised of wetlands, 40 percent is comprised of floodplains, and 34 percent consist of agricultural lands. On average, 56 percent of the area contained within the South Unit corridor alternatives consists of wetlands, 55 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 42 percent consists of agricultural lands. For the East Unit alternatives, 51 percent of the area consists of wetlands, 81 percent is located within a 100-year floodplain, and 9.6 percent consists of agricultural lands. The project area contains numerous community facilities, cultural resources, hazardous waste sites, and oil and gas wells. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110378, Volume 1--496 pages and maps, Volume 2 (Exhibits)--139 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi River KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916143376?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=BATON+ROUGE+LOOP%2C+PARISHES+OF+ASCENSION%2C+EAST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+IBERVILLE%2C+LIVINGSTON%2C+AND+WEST+BATON+ROUGE%2C+LOUISIANA+%28TIER+1+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 12 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917564126; 15125-8_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917564126?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 11 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917564122; 15125-8_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917564122?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 10 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917564118; 15125-8_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917564118?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 9 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917564114; 15125-8_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917564114?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 8 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917564111; 15125-8_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917564111?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 7 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917564107; 15125-8_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917564107?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 6 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917564104; 15125-8_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917564104?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 30 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563852; 15125-8_0030 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563852?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 29 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563848; 15125-8_0029 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563848?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 28 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563844; 15125-8_0028 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563844?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 27 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563840; 15125-8_0027 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563840?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 26 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563837; 15125-8_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563837?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 5 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563727; 15125-8_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563727?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 4 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563724; 15125-8_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563724?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 3 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563722; 15125-8_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563722?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 2 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563721; 15125-8_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563721?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563718; 15125-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563718?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 32 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563651; 15125-8_0032 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563651?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 31 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563641; 15125-8_0031 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563641?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 25 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563632; 15125-8_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563632?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 24 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563624; 15125-8_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563624?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 23 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563616; 15125-8_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563616?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 22 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563607; 15125-8_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563607?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 18 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563598; 15125-8_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563598?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 21 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563597; 15125-8_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563597?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 20 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563586; 15125-8_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563586?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 17 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563585; 15125-8_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563585?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 19 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563577; 15125-8_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563577?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 16 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563572; 15125-8_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563572?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 15 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563560; 15125-8_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563560?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 14 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563550; 15125-8_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563550?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 13 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563537; 15125-8_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563537?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CITY OF DENISON LAND CONVEYANCE, LAKE TEXOMA, OKLAHOMA AND TEXAS. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CITY OF DENISON LAND CONVEYANCE, LAKE TEXOMA, OKLAHOMA AND TEXAS. AN - 917563482; 15126-9_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The conveyance of 635 acres of federal land at Lake Texoma, Oklahoma and Texas, to the City of Denison, Texas is proposed. The City of Denison intends to retain portions of the land for development of public facilities and to transfer remaining portions to a private developer. Lake Texoma is located on the Red River between Texas and Oklahoma, and lies within four Oklahoma counties (Bryan, Love, Marshall, and Johnston) and two Texas counties (Grayson and Cooke). The proposed conveyance land is located entirely within Grayson County along the eastern shore of the Little Mineral Arm of the lake. Immediately adjacent is approximately 2,500 acres of private land owned by Schuler Development, a real estate development company that plans to enter into a public-private partnership with the City of Denison. A No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and three action alternatives involving varying degrees of shoreline development are assessed in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 2, the federal land would be conveyed, but no changes to the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) or deviations from the existing moratorium on private boat docks would occur. A condition of the conveyance would include an associated flowage easement deed restriction on conveyed land located between elevations 619 feet and 645 feet to allow the Corps of Engineers to continue efficient operation of Lake Texoma for authorized flood control purposes. The conveyance land and the adjacent private land would be annexed to the city and development would be governed by city regulations. Alternative 3 would include the proposed conveyance and associated flowage easement, as described for Alternative 2 and no changes would occur to the SMP. However, the moratorium would be lifted along the conveyance shoreline to allow for the issuance of SMP permits for installation of private docks in two appropriately zoned areas. Alternative 4 is the proposed action and would include the land conveyance and the associated flowage easement. The moratorium on private boat docks would be lifted and the SMP would be modified for proposed shoreline development in the area of conveyance. Development on the proposed conveyance land and adjacent private land is expected to include approximately 1,319 acres of residential development, hotels and a conference center, medical offices, golf courses and associated clubhouses, hike and bike trails, open space, inland lakes, a public boat club, dry stack boat storage, private boat docks, boat slips, a wastewater pump station, and a public park with a boat ramp. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed conveyance would facilitate development on several thousand acres of adjacent private land and enhance recreational and economic development opportunities at and around the lake. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development would cause moderate to significant loss of forest and grassland vegetation, displacement of wildlife, and potential for introduction and spread of invasive species, including the zebra mussel. Under the proposed action, installation of boat ramps and boat slips would require dredging and cause significant disruption to fish and aquatic resources. Localized reduction in shoreline access would affect recreational fishing. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110369, 591 pages, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Easements KW - Flood Control KW - Forests KW - Lakes KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Shores KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Lake Texoma KW - Oklahoma KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917563482?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CITY+OF+DENISON+LAND+CONVEYANCE%2C+LAKE+TEXOMA%2C+OKLAHOMA+AND+TEXAS.&rft.title=CITY+OF+DENISON+LAND+CONVEYANCE%2C+LAKE+TEXOMA%2C+OKLAHOMA+AND+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Tulsa, Oklahoma; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 40 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563317; 15125-8_0040 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 40 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563317?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 39 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563312; 15125-8_0039 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 39 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563312?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 38 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563291; 15125-8_0038 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563291?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 37 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563288; 15125-8_0037 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 37 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563288?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 36 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563283; 15125-8_0036 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563283?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 35 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563279; 15125-8_0035 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563279?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 34 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563275; 15125-8_0034 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563275?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 33 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563273; 15125-8_0033 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563273?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 43 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563272; 15125-8_0043 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 43 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563272?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 42 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563270; 15125-8_0042 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 42 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563270?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 41 of 43] T2 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 917563268; 15125-8_0041 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 41 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/917563268?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CITY OF DENISON LAND CONVEYANCE, LAKE TEXOMA, OKLAHOMA AND TEXAS. AN - 915373265; 15126 AB - PURPOSE: The conveyance of 635 acres of federal land at Lake Texoma, Oklahoma and Texas, to the City of Denison, Texas is proposed. The City of Denison intends to retain portions of the land for development of public facilities and to transfer remaining portions to a private developer. Lake Texoma is located on the Red River between Texas and Oklahoma, and lies within four Oklahoma counties (Bryan, Love, Marshall, and Johnston) and two Texas counties (Grayson and Cooke). The proposed conveyance land is located entirely within Grayson County along the eastern shore of the Little Mineral Arm of the lake. Immediately adjacent is approximately 2,500 acres of private land owned by Schuler Development, a real estate development company that plans to enter into a public-private partnership with the City of Denison. A No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and three action alternatives involving varying degrees of shoreline development are assessed in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 2, the federal land would be conveyed, but no changes to the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) or deviations from the existing moratorium on private boat docks would occur. A condition of the conveyance would include an associated flowage easement deed restriction on conveyed land located between elevations 619 feet and 645 feet to allow the Corps of Engineers to continue efficient operation of Lake Texoma for authorized flood control purposes. The conveyance land and the adjacent private land would be annexed to the city and development would be governed by city regulations. Alternative 3 would include the proposed conveyance and associated flowage easement, as described for Alternative 2 and no changes would occur to the SMP. However, the moratorium would be lifted along the conveyance shoreline to allow for the issuance of SMP permits for installation of private docks in two appropriately zoned areas. Alternative 4 is the proposed action and would include the land conveyance and the associated flowage easement. The moratorium on private boat docks would be lifted and the SMP would be modified for proposed shoreline development in the area of conveyance. Development on the proposed conveyance land and adjacent private land is expected to include approximately 1,319 acres of residential development, hotels and a conference center, medical offices, golf courses and associated clubhouses, hike and bike trails, open space, inland lakes, a public boat club, dry stack boat storage, private boat docks, boat slips, a wastewater pump station, and a public park with a boat ramp. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed conveyance would facilitate development on several thousand acres of adjacent private land and enhance recreational and economic development opportunities at and around the lake. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development would cause moderate to significant loss of forest and grassland vegetation, displacement of wildlife, and potential for introduction and spread of invasive species, including the zebra mussel. Under the proposed action, installation of boat ramps and boat slips would require dredging and cause significant disruption to fish and aquatic resources. Localized reduction in shoreline access would affect recreational fishing. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110369, 591 pages, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Easements KW - Flood Control KW - Forests KW - Lakes KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Shores KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Lake Texoma KW - Oklahoma KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/915373265?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CITY+OF+DENISON+LAND+CONVEYANCE%2C+LAKE+TEXOMA%2C+OKLAHOMA+AND+TEXAS.&rft.title=CITY+OF+DENISON+LAND+CONVEYANCE%2C+LAKE+TEXOMA%2C+OKLAHOMA+AND+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Tulsa, Oklahoma; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-12 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25 IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 915373002; 15125 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the seven-mile segment of Interstate 25 (I-25) that passes through Pueblo, Colorado, from just south of US Highway 50 (US 50)/State Highway (SH) 47 to just south of Pueblo Boulevard, are proposed. The corridor, known as the Pueblo Freeway, was originally completed in 1959 and changes are required to address current and future transportation needs. I-25 serves as a critical north-south link in the nations Interstate Highway System and as a strategic international corridor under the North American Free Trade Act. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The Existing I-25 Alternative would widen I-25 to six lanes (three in each direction) from just north of 29th Street to Pueblo Boulevard on its current alignment. The interchanges at US 50B, Indiana Avenue, and Pueblo Boulevard would be reconstructed. Access to 29th Street would be provided via a frontage road and split-diamond interchanges would be created between 13th Street and 1st Street and Abriendo Avenue and Northern Avenue. Connectivity off of I-25 would be improved by extending Dillon Drive south from 26th Street to US 50B and by extending Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. The Modified I-25 Alternative, which is preferred, shares the design characteristics of the Existing I-25 Alternative, with the exception of the southern part of the corridor between the Arkansas River and Canal Street where the Existing I-25 Alternative can be implemented only by moving the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 150 feet to the east to make room for widening I-25. As an alternative to moving the rail line, the Modified I-25 Alternative would relocate I-25 on a new alignment to the east at Ilex Street, which would allow the UPRR rail line south of the Arkansas River to remain in place. With the Modified I-25 Alternative, I-25 would bridge over the railroad tracks at Minnequa Avenue and then run on the west side of the tracks and rejoin the existing I-25 alignment. By straightening I-25 at Ilex Street, I-25 would leave the current alignment and continue south. The roadway portion no longer used as I-25 would be available to become an extension of Santa Fe Avenue, a critical element to improving local mobility. The Modified I-25 Alternative would extend Abriendo Avenue across I-25 to Santa Fe Drive. Under both build alternatives, the completion of proposed trails and sidewalks would provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian access between 29th Street in the north to Pueblo Boulevard in the south. The project would be constructed in phases, with phase one being the replacements of the Ilex Street bridges. The estimated costs for all the project improvements are $760.5 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deteriorating roadways and bridges and unsafe road characteristics. Local and regional mobility within and through Pueblo would be improved to meet existing and future travel demands. Trails would provide safe, non-motorized access to Mineral Palace Park, Benedict Park, JJ Raigoza Park, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, the Runyon Field Sports Complex, the Runyon Lake State Wildlife Area, and the Fountain Creek Trail system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause direct loss of 1.1 acres of wetlands and 18.1 acres of wildlife habitat and temporary impacts to road traffic, trails and UPRR operations. For the preferred alternative, acquisitions would include: 117 residences; 56 total and 26 partial commercial properties; and 15 total and 15 partial public properties. Construction of four new bridges over the Arkansas River would require relocation of trails and an existing pedestrian bridge. Implementation of the preferred alternative would cause adverse effects to 40 historic resources, including the North Side, Second Ward, Steelworks Suburbs, and Grove historic districts. Noise impacts would be mitigated through construction of 21,525 feet of noise walls. 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: 110368, Draft EIS--516 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado 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/915373002?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-25+IMPROVEMENTS+THROUGH+PUEBLO%2C+PUEBLO+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-12 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ENRICO FERMI NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSE, MONROE COUNTY, MICHIGAN. [Part 1 of 5] T2 - ENRICO FERMI NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSE, MONROE COUNTY, MICHIGAN. AN - 922529306; 15121-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a combined license for the construction and operation of a new nuclear power reactor at the Detroit Edison Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant (Fermi) in Monroe County, Michigan is proposed. Detroit Edison, a wholly-owned subsidiary of DTE Energy, submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on September 18, 2008 for Fermi Unit 3. The proposed site is located on the western shore of Lake Erie approximately 30 miles southwest of Detroit, Michigan, and seven miles from the United States-Canada international border. The proposed Fermi Unit 3 and associated facilities would be completely within the confines of the current 1,260-acre Fermi site, and would be located adjacent to the existing Fermi Unit 2. Fermi Unit 1, also on the site, is in the process of being decommissioned. Fermi Unit 3 would utilize an Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) designed by GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas, LLC. The ESBWR design is a single-cycle, natural circulation, boiling water reactor, and has passive safety features. The reactor is rated at 4,500 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a design gross electrical output of approximately 1,605 MW electrical and a net output of 1,535 MW electrical. The normal power heat sink for Fermi 3 would be provided by an additional concrete natural draft cooling tower. Water from Lake Erie would be used for makeup water for the circulating water system, the plant service water system, and the fire protection system. The intake for Fermi 3 would be adjacent to the existing intake for Fermi 2 and an offshore underwater discharge pipe would serve as the outfall from the Fermi 3 water systems. The proposed natural draft cooling tower for Fermi 3 would be located to the southwest of the two existing Fermi 2 cooling towers. Some of the existing infrastructure on the Fermi site would be modified to integrate Fermi 3 with Fermi 2. None of the Fermi 2 structures or facilities that directly support power generation at that unit would be shared. The electrical switchyard for Fermi 3 would be separate from the existing Fermi 2 switchyard, but the transmission lines from the two switchyards would share common transmission towers as the lines leave the site. Three new 345-kilovolt transmission lines are proposed and would extend offsite along a 29.5-mile route in Monroe, southwest Wayne County, and southeast Washtenaw County. Approximately 10.8 miles of the corridor would be sited along new undeveloped right-of-way. Liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste management systems would be used to collect and treat the radioactive materials produced as byproducts of operating Fermi 3. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS considers energy source alternatives, system design alternatives, four alternative sites, and alternatives related to the location of proposed facilities on the Fermi site. The preliminary recommendation of NRC staff is that the operating licenses be issued as requested. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide for additional large baseload electrical generating capacity to address Michigans expected future peak electric demand. Economic impacts would benefit local economies, particularly Monroe County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 34.5 acres of wetlands and 5.2 acres of open water, and 8.3 acres of wetlands would be permanently lost. Approximately 10 acres of prime farmland would be permanently occupied. The Fermi 3 project footprint would encroach into a portion of the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge. Some dredging in Lake Erie would be needed to accommodate movement of equipment and components by barge. The estimated peak construction workforce of 2,900 would have a temporary adverse impact on traffic on local roadways. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). JF - EPA number: 110364, Volume 1--805 pages, Volume 2--737 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-2105 KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Cooling Systems KW - Dredging KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Lakes KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Lake Erie KW - Michigan KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/922529306?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ENRICO+FERMI+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNIT+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSE%2C+MONROE+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=ENRICO+FERMI+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNIT+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSE%2C+MONROE+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-22 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 8 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 916688040; 15122-5_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a five-lane arterial roadway, known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), between Provo Airport and the vicinity of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interchange with University Avenue and 1860 South Street in Provo, Utah is proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo and includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. In addition to the PWC, the proposed improvements would include the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot-wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. The 1860 South Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative based on public comment preferences, agency comment preferences, reduced land use impacts, superior transportation performance, lack of visual impacts, lack of noise impacts, fewer commercial property impacts, and practicable avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $57.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new roadway would support planned development in southwest Provo, planned improvements at the Provo Airport, and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 9.3 acres of wetlands, 1,594 linear feet of streams, 93 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, and 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0474D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110365, Final EIS--380 pages, Appendices and Maps--296 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-F KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/916688040?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 7 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 916688031; 15122-5_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a five-lane arterial roadway, known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), between Provo Airport and the vicinity of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interchange with University Avenue and 1860 South Street in Provo, Utah is proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo and includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. In addition to the PWC, the proposed improvements would include the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot-wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. The 1860 South Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative based on public comment preferences, agency comment preferences, reduced land use impacts, superior transportation performance, lack of visual impacts, lack of noise impacts, fewer commercial property impacts, and practicable avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $57.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new roadway would support planned development in southwest Provo, planned improvements at the Provo Airport, and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 9.3 acres of wetlands, 1,594 linear feet of streams, 93 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, and 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0474D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110365, Final EIS--380 pages, Appendices and Maps--296 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-F KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/916688031?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 6 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 916688024; 15122-5_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a five-lane arterial roadway, known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), between Provo Airport and the vicinity of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interchange with University Avenue and 1860 South Street in Provo, Utah is proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo and includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. In addition to the PWC, the proposed improvements would include the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot-wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. The 1860 South Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative based on public comment preferences, agency comment preferences, reduced land use impacts, superior transportation performance, lack of visual impacts, lack of noise impacts, fewer commercial property impacts, and practicable avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $57.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new roadway would support planned development in southwest Provo, planned improvements at the Provo Airport, and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 9.3 acres of wetlands, 1,594 linear feet of streams, 93 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, and 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0474D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110365, Final EIS--380 pages, Appendices and Maps--296 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-F KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/916688024?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 5 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 916688018; 15122-5_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a five-lane arterial roadway, known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), between Provo Airport and the vicinity of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interchange with University Avenue and 1860 South Street in Provo, Utah is proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo and includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. In addition to the PWC, the proposed improvements would include the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot-wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. The 1860 South Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative based on public comment preferences, agency comment preferences, reduced land use impacts, superior transportation performance, lack of visual impacts, lack of noise impacts, fewer commercial property impacts, and practicable avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $57.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new roadway would support planned development in southwest Provo, planned improvements at the Provo Airport, and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 9.3 acres of wetlands, 1,594 linear feet of streams, 93 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, and 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0474D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110365, Final EIS--380 pages, Appendices and Maps--296 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-F KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/916688018?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 4 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 916688000; 15122-5_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a five-lane arterial roadway, known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), between Provo Airport and the vicinity of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interchange with University Avenue and 1860 South Street in Provo, Utah is proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo and includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. In addition to the PWC, the proposed improvements would include the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot-wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. The 1860 South Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative based on public comment preferences, agency comment preferences, reduced land use impacts, superior transportation performance, lack of visual impacts, lack of noise impacts, fewer commercial property impacts, and practicable avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $57.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new roadway would support planned development in southwest Provo, planned improvements at the Provo Airport, and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 9.3 acres of wetlands, 1,594 linear feet of streams, 93 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, and 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0474D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110365, Final EIS--380 pages, Appendices and Maps--296 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-F KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/916688000?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER, 2010). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER, 2010). AN - 916687952; 15118-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy right-of-way (ROW) applications on a project-specific basis. As of August 15, 2011, the BLM had approved 10 utility-scale solar projects on public land and the associated linear ROWs to enable the development of two projects on private land. Also as of August 15, 2011, there were 79 pending solar applications: 31 in Arizona, 20 in California, 25 in Nevada, and three in New Mexico. A draft programmatic EIS issued in December, 2010 considered a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. The preferred solar energy development program alternative identified solar energy zones (SEZs) where development would be prioritized, while the SEZ program alternative would exclude development outside the zones. This draft supplement focuses on modified and new components of the proposed programs. The modified solar energy development program alternative emphasizes development within SEZs and proposes a collaborative process to identify additional SEZs. Utility-scale solar development would be allowed in variance areas outside of SEZs in accordance with the proposed variance process. The modified program alternative also establishes authorization policies and procedures for utility-scale solar energy development on BLM-administered lands. Some of the SEZs analyzed in the draft programmatic EIS were found to have substantial resource conflicts and have been dropped: Bullard Wash in Arizona, Iron Mountain and Pisgah in California, Delamar Valley and East Mormon Mountain in Nevada, and Mason Draw and Red Sands in New Mexico. In addition, the areas of the following SEZs have been substantially reduced: Riverside East in California; De Tilla Gulch, Fourmile East, and Los Mogotes East in Colorado; Amargosa Valley, Dry Lake, and Dry Lake Valley North in Nevada; and Afton in New Mexico. These changes reduce the total acreage potentially available for development in proposed SEZs from 677,000 acres to 285,000 acres. Approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would remain available for ROW application under the modified preferred alternative. This draft supplement also considers a No Action Alternative which would perpetuate the DOE's case-by-case review process for solar projects and one action alternative which specifies programmatic guidance for the analysis and selection of solar projects that DOE will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies (parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems) and photovoltaic technologies. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. The proposed SEZs would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110361, 582 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-49 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687952?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER%2C+2010%29.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER%2C+2010%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 14 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 916687914; 15122-5_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a five-lane arterial roadway, known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), between Provo Airport and the vicinity of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interchange with University Avenue and 1860 South Street in Provo, Utah is proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo and includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. In addition to the PWC, the proposed improvements would include the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot-wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. The 1860 South Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative based on public comment preferences, agency comment preferences, reduced land use impacts, superior transportation performance, lack of visual impacts, lack of noise impacts, fewer commercial property impacts, and practicable avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $57.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new roadway would support planned development in southwest Provo, planned improvements at the Provo Airport, and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 9.3 acres of wetlands, 1,594 linear feet of streams, 93 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, and 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0474D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110365, Final EIS--380 pages, Appendices and Maps--296 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-F KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/916687914?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 13 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 916687910; 15122-5_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a five-lane arterial roadway, known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), between Provo Airport and the vicinity of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interchange with University Avenue and 1860 South Street in Provo, Utah is proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo and includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. In addition to the PWC, the proposed improvements would include the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot-wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. The 1860 South Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative based on public comment preferences, agency comment preferences, reduced land use impacts, superior transportation performance, lack of visual impacts, lack of noise impacts, fewer commercial property impacts, and practicable avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $57.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new roadway would support planned development in southwest Provo, planned improvements at the Provo Airport, and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 9.3 acres of wetlands, 1,594 linear feet of streams, 93 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, and 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0474D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110365, Final EIS--380 pages, Appendices and Maps--296 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-F KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/916687910?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 12 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 916687905; 15122-5_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a five-lane arterial roadway, known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), between Provo Airport and the vicinity of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interchange with University Avenue and 1860 South Street in Provo, Utah is proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo and includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. In addition to the PWC, the proposed improvements would include the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot-wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. The 1860 South Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative based on public comment preferences, agency comment preferences, reduced land use impacts, superior transportation performance, lack of visual impacts, lack of noise impacts, fewer commercial property impacts, and practicable avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $57.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new roadway would support planned development in southwest Provo, planned improvements at the Provo Airport, and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 9.3 acres of wetlands, 1,594 linear feet of streams, 93 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, and 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0474D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110365, Final EIS--380 pages, Appendices and Maps--296 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-F KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/916687905?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 11 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 916687899; 15122-5_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a five-lane arterial roadway, known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), between Provo Airport and the vicinity of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interchange with University Avenue and 1860 South Street in Provo, Utah is proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo and includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. In addition to the PWC, the proposed improvements would include the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot-wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. The 1860 South Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative based on public comment preferences, agency comment preferences, reduced land use impacts, superior transportation performance, lack of visual impacts, lack of noise impacts, fewer commercial property impacts, and practicable avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $57.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new roadway would support planned development in southwest Provo, planned improvements at the Provo Airport, and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 9.3 acres of wetlands, 1,594 linear feet of streams, 93 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, and 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0474D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110365, Final EIS--380 pages, Appendices and Maps--296 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-F KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/916687899?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 10 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 916687896; 15122-5_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a five-lane arterial roadway, known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), between Provo Airport and the vicinity of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interchange with University Avenue and 1860 South Street in Provo, Utah is proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo and includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. In addition to the PWC, the proposed improvements would include the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot-wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. The 1860 South Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative based on public comment preferences, agency comment preferences, reduced land use impacts, superior transportation performance, lack of visual impacts, lack of noise impacts, fewer commercial property impacts, and practicable avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $57.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new roadway would support planned development in southwest Provo, planned improvements at the Provo Airport, and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 9.3 acres of wetlands, 1,594 linear feet of streams, 93 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, and 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0474D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110365, Final EIS--380 pages, Appendices and Maps--296 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-F KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/916687896?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 9 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 916687888; 15122-5_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a five-lane arterial roadway, known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), between Provo Airport and the vicinity of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interchange with University Avenue and 1860 South Street in Provo, Utah is proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo and includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. In addition to the PWC, the proposed improvements would include the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot-wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. The 1860 South Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative based on public comment preferences, agency comment preferences, reduced land use impacts, superior transportation performance, lack of visual impacts, lack of noise impacts, fewer commercial property impacts, and practicable avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $57.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new roadway would support planned development in southwest Provo, planned improvements at the Provo Airport, and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 9.3 acres of wetlands, 1,594 linear feet of streams, 93 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, and 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0474D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110365, Final EIS--380 pages, Appendices and Maps--296 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-F KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/916687888?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 16 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 916687673; 15122-5_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a five-lane arterial roadway, known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), between Provo Airport and the vicinity of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interchange with University Avenue and 1860 South Street in Provo, Utah is proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo and includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. In addition to the PWC, the proposed improvements would include the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot-wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. The 1860 South Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative based on public comment preferences, agency comment preferences, reduced land use impacts, superior transportation performance, lack of visual impacts, lack of noise impacts, fewer commercial property impacts, and practicable avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $57.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new roadway would support planned development in southwest Provo, planned improvements at the Provo Airport, and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 9.3 acres of wetlands, 1,594 linear feet of streams, 93 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, and 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0474D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110365, Final EIS--380 pages, Appendices and Maps--296 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-F KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/916687673?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 15 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 916687663; 15122-5_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a five-lane arterial roadway, known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), between Provo Airport and the vicinity of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interchange with University Avenue and 1860 South Street in Provo, Utah is proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo and includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. In addition to the PWC, the proposed improvements would include the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot-wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. The 1860 South Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative based on public comment preferences, agency comment preferences, reduced land use impacts, superior transportation performance, lack of visual impacts, lack of noise impacts, fewer commercial property impacts, and practicable avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $57.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new roadway would support planned development in southwest Provo, planned improvements at the Provo Airport, and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 9.3 acres of wetlands, 1,594 linear feet of streams, 93 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, and 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0474D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110365, Final EIS--380 pages, Appendices and Maps--296 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-F KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/916687663?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 2 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 916687648; 15122-5_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a five-lane arterial roadway, known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), between Provo Airport and the vicinity of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interchange with University Avenue and 1860 South Street in Provo, Utah is proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo and includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. In addition to the PWC, the proposed improvements would include the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot-wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. The 1860 South Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative based on public comment preferences, agency comment preferences, reduced land use impacts, superior transportation performance, lack of visual impacts, lack of noise impacts, fewer commercial property impacts, and practicable avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $57.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new roadway would support planned development in southwest Provo, planned improvements at the Provo Airport, and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 9.3 acres of wetlands, 1,594 linear feet of streams, 93 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, and 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0474D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110365, Final EIS--380 pages, Appendices and Maps--296 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-F KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/916687648?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 1 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 916687641; 15122-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a five-lane arterial roadway, known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), between Provo Airport and the vicinity of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interchange with University Avenue and 1860 South Street in Provo, Utah is proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo and includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. In addition to the PWC, the proposed improvements would include the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot-wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. The 1860 South Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative based on public comment preferences, agency comment preferences, reduced land use impacts, superior transportation performance, lack of visual impacts, lack of noise impacts, fewer commercial property impacts, and practicable avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $57.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new roadway would support planned development in southwest Provo, planned improvements at the Provo Airport, and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 9.3 acres of wetlands, 1,594 linear feet of streams, 93 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, and 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0474D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110365, Final EIS--380 pages, Appendices and Maps--296 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-F KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/916687641?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 3 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 916687586; 15122-5_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a five-lane arterial roadway, known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), between Provo Airport and the vicinity of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interchange with University Avenue and 1860 South Street in Provo, Utah is proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo and includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. In addition to the PWC, the proposed improvements would include the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot-wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. The 1860 South Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative based on public comment preferences, agency comment preferences, reduced land use impacts, superior transportation performance, lack of visual impacts, lack of noise impacts, fewer commercial property impacts, and practicable avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $57.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new roadway would support planned development in southwest Provo, planned improvements at the Provo Airport, and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 9.3 acres of wetlands, 1,594 linear feet of streams, 93 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, and 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0474D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110365, Final EIS--380 pages, Appendices and Maps--296 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-F KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/916687586?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ENRICO FERMI NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSE, MONROE COUNTY, MICHIGAN. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - ENRICO FERMI NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSE, MONROE COUNTY, MICHIGAN. AN - 916687481; 15121-4_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a combined license for the construction and operation of a new nuclear power reactor at the Detroit Edison Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant (Fermi) in Monroe County, Michigan is proposed. Detroit Edison, a wholly-owned subsidiary of DTE Energy, submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on September 18, 2008 for Fermi Unit 3. The proposed site is located on the western shore of Lake Erie approximately 30 miles southwest of Detroit, Michigan, and seven miles from the United States-Canada international border. The proposed Fermi Unit 3 and associated facilities would be completely within the confines of the current 1,260-acre Fermi site, and would be located adjacent to the existing Fermi Unit 2. Fermi Unit 1, also on the site, is in the process of being decommissioned. Fermi Unit 3 would utilize an Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) designed by GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas, LLC. The ESBWR design is a single-cycle, natural circulation, boiling water reactor, and has passive safety features. The reactor is rated at 4,500 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a design gross electrical output of approximately 1,605 MW electrical and a net output of 1,535 MW electrical. The normal power heat sink for Fermi 3 would be provided by an additional concrete natural draft cooling tower. Water from Lake Erie would be used for makeup water for the circulating water system, the plant service water system, and the fire protection system. The intake for Fermi 3 would be adjacent to the existing intake for Fermi 2 and an offshore underwater discharge pipe would serve as the outfall from the Fermi 3 water systems. The proposed natural draft cooling tower for Fermi 3 would be located to the southwest of the two existing Fermi 2 cooling towers. Some of the existing infrastructure on the Fermi site would be modified to integrate Fermi 3 with Fermi 2. None of the Fermi 2 structures or facilities that directly support power generation at that unit would be shared. The electrical switchyard for Fermi 3 would be separate from the existing Fermi 2 switchyard, but the transmission lines from the two switchyards would share common transmission towers as the lines leave the site. Three new 345-kilovolt transmission lines are proposed and would extend offsite along a 29.5-mile route in Monroe, southwest Wayne County, and southeast Washtenaw County. Approximately 10.8 miles of the corridor would be sited along new undeveloped right-of-way. Liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste management systems would be used to collect and treat the radioactive materials produced as byproducts of operating Fermi 3. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS considers energy source alternatives, system design alternatives, four alternative sites, and alternatives related to the location of proposed facilities on the Fermi site. The preliminary recommendation of NRC staff is that the operating licenses be issued as requested. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide for additional large baseload electrical generating capacity to address Michigans expected future peak electric demand. Economic impacts would benefit local economies, particularly Monroe County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 34.5 acres of wetlands and 5.2 acres of open water, and 8.3 acres of wetlands would be permanently lost. Approximately 10 acres of prime farmland would be permanently occupied. The Fermi 3 project footprint would encroach into a portion of the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge. Some dredging in Lake Erie would be needed to accommodate movement of equipment and components by barge. The estimated peak construction workforce of 2,900 would have a temporary adverse impact on traffic on local roadways. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). JF - EPA number: 110364, Volume 1--805 pages, Volume 2--737 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-2105 KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Cooling Systems KW - Dredging KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Lakes KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Lake Erie KW - Michigan KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687481?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ENRICO+FERMI+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNIT+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSE%2C+MONROE+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=ENRICO+FERMI+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNIT+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSE%2C+MONROE+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ENRICO FERMI NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSE, MONROE COUNTY, MICHIGAN. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - ENRICO FERMI NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSE, MONROE COUNTY, MICHIGAN. AN - 916687470; 15121-4_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a combined license for the construction and operation of a new nuclear power reactor at the Detroit Edison Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant (Fermi) in Monroe County, Michigan is proposed. Detroit Edison, a wholly-owned subsidiary of DTE Energy, submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on September 18, 2008 for Fermi Unit 3. The proposed site is located on the western shore of Lake Erie approximately 30 miles southwest of Detroit, Michigan, and seven miles from the United States-Canada international border. The proposed Fermi Unit 3 and associated facilities would be completely within the confines of the current 1,260-acre Fermi site, and would be located adjacent to the existing Fermi Unit 2. Fermi Unit 1, also on the site, is in the process of being decommissioned. Fermi Unit 3 would utilize an Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) designed by GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas, LLC. The ESBWR design is a single-cycle, natural circulation, boiling water reactor, and has passive safety features. The reactor is rated at 4,500 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a design gross electrical output of approximately 1,605 MW electrical and a net output of 1,535 MW electrical. The normal power heat sink for Fermi 3 would be provided by an additional concrete natural draft cooling tower. Water from Lake Erie would be used for makeup water for the circulating water system, the plant service water system, and the fire protection system. The intake for Fermi 3 would be adjacent to the existing intake for Fermi 2 and an offshore underwater discharge pipe would serve as the outfall from the Fermi 3 water systems. The proposed natural draft cooling tower for Fermi 3 would be located to the southwest of the two existing Fermi 2 cooling towers. Some of the existing infrastructure on the Fermi site would be modified to integrate Fermi 3 with Fermi 2. None of the Fermi 2 structures or facilities that directly support power generation at that unit would be shared. The electrical switchyard for Fermi 3 would be separate from the existing Fermi 2 switchyard, but the transmission lines from the two switchyards would share common transmission towers as the lines leave the site. Three new 345-kilovolt transmission lines are proposed and would extend offsite along a 29.5-mile route in Monroe, southwest Wayne County, and southeast Washtenaw County. Approximately 10.8 miles of the corridor would be sited along new undeveloped right-of-way. Liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste management systems would be used to collect and treat the radioactive materials produced as byproducts of operating Fermi 3. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS considers energy source alternatives, system design alternatives, four alternative sites, and alternatives related to the location of proposed facilities on the Fermi site. The preliminary recommendation of NRC staff is that the operating licenses be issued as requested. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide for additional large baseload electrical generating capacity to address Michigans expected future peak electric demand. Economic impacts would benefit local economies, particularly Monroe County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 34.5 acres of wetlands and 5.2 acres of open water, and 8.3 acres of wetlands would be permanently lost. Approximately 10 acres of prime farmland would be permanently occupied. The Fermi 3 project footprint would encroach into a portion of the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge. Some dredging in Lake Erie would be needed to accommodate movement of equipment and components by barge. The estimated peak construction workforce of 2,900 would have a temporary adverse impact on traffic on local roadways. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). JF - EPA number: 110364, Volume 1--805 pages, Volume 2--737 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-2105 KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Cooling Systems KW - Dredging KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Lakes KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Lake Erie KW - Michigan KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687470?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ENRICO+FERMI+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNIT+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSE%2C+MONROE+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=ENRICO+FERMI+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNIT+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSE%2C+MONROE+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ENRICO FERMI NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSE, MONROE COUNTY, MICHIGAN. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - ENRICO FERMI NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSE, MONROE COUNTY, MICHIGAN. AN - 916687461; 15121-4_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a combined license for the construction and operation of a new nuclear power reactor at the Detroit Edison Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant (Fermi) in Monroe County, Michigan is proposed. Detroit Edison, a wholly-owned subsidiary of DTE Energy, submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on September 18, 2008 for Fermi Unit 3. The proposed site is located on the western shore of Lake Erie approximately 30 miles southwest of Detroit, Michigan, and seven miles from the United States-Canada international border. The proposed Fermi Unit 3 and associated facilities would be completely within the confines of the current 1,260-acre Fermi site, and would be located adjacent to the existing Fermi Unit 2. Fermi Unit 1, also on the site, is in the process of being decommissioned. Fermi Unit 3 would utilize an Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) designed by GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas, LLC. The ESBWR design is a single-cycle, natural circulation, boiling water reactor, and has passive safety features. The reactor is rated at 4,500 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a design gross electrical output of approximately 1,605 MW electrical and a net output of 1,535 MW electrical. The normal power heat sink for Fermi 3 would be provided by an additional concrete natural draft cooling tower. Water from Lake Erie would be used for makeup water for the circulating water system, the plant service water system, and the fire protection system. The intake for Fermi 3 would be adjacent to the existing intake for Fermi 2 and an offshore underwater discharge pipe would serve as the outfall from the Fermi 3 water systems. The proposed natural draft cooling tower for Fermi 3 would be located to the southwest of the two existing Fermi 2 cooling towers. Some of the existing infrastructure on the Fermi site would be modified to integrate Fermi 3 with Fermi 2. None of the Fermi 2 structures or facilities that directly support power generation at that unit would be shared. The electrical switchyard for Fermi 3 would be separate from the existing Fermi 2 switchyard, but the transmission lines from the two switchyards would share common transmission towers as the lines leave the site. Three new 345-kilovolt transmission lines are proposed and would extend offsite along a 29.5-mile route in Monroe, southwest Wayne County, and southeast Washtenaw County. Approximately 10.8 miles of the corridor would be sited along new undeveloped right-of-way. Liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste management systems would be used to collect and treat the radioactive materials produced as byproducts of operating Fermi 3. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS considers energy source alternatives, system design alternatives, four alternative sites, and alternatives related to the location of proposed facilities on the Fermi site. The preliminary recommendation of NRC staff is that the operating licenses be issued as requested. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide for additional large baseload electrical generating capacity to address Michigans expected future peak electric demand. Economic impacts would benefit local economies, particularly Monroe County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 34.5 acres of wetlands and 5.2 acres of open water, and 8.3 acres of wetlands would be permanently lost. Approximately 10 acres of prime farmland would be permanently occupied. The Fermi 3 project footprint would encroach into a portion of the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge. Some dredging in Lake Erie would be needed to accommodate movement of equipment and components by barge. The estimated peak construction workforce of 2,900 would have a temporary adverse impact on traffic on local roadways. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). JF - EPA number: 110364, Volume 1--805 pages, Volume 2--737 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-2105 KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Cooling Systems KW - Dredging KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Lakes KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Lake Erie KW - Michigan KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687461?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ENRICO+FERMI+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNIT+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSE%2C+MONROE+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=ENRICO+FERMI+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNIT+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSE%2C+MONROE+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ENRICO FERMI NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSE, MONROE COUNTY, MICHIGAN. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - ENRICO FERMI NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSE, MONROE COUNTY, MICHIGAN. AN - 916687184; 15121-4_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a combined license for the construction and operation of a new nuclear power reactor at the Detroit Edison Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant (Fermi) in Monroe County, Michigan is proposed. Detroit Edison, a wholly-owned subsidiary of DTE Energy, submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on September 18, 2008 for Fermi Unit 3. The proposed site is located on the western shore of Lake Erie approximately 30 miles southwest of Detroit, Michigan, and seven miles from the United States-Canada international border. The proposed Fermi Unit 3 and associated facilities would be completely within the confines of the current 1,260-acre Fermi site, and would be located adjacent to the existing Fermi Unit 2. Fermi Unit 1, also on the site, is in the process of being decommissioned. Fermi Unit 3 would utilize an Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) designed by GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas, LLC. The ESBWR design is a single-cycle, natural circulation, boiling water reactor, and has passive safety features. The reactor is rated at 4,500 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a design gross electrical output of approximately 1,605 MW electrical and a net output of 1,535 MW electrical. The normal power heat sink for Fermi 3 would be provided by an additional concrete natural draft cooling tower. Water from Lake Erie would be used for makeup water for the circulating water system, the plant service water system, and the fire protection system. The intake for Fermi 3 would be adjacent to the existing intake for Fermi 2 and an offshore underwater discharge pipe would serve as the outfall from the Fermi 3 water systems. The proposed natural draft cooling tower for Fermi 3 would be located to the southwest of the two existing Fermi 2 cooling towers. Some of the existing infrastructure on the Fermi site would be modified to integrate Fermi 3 with Fermi 2. None of the Fermi 2 structures or facilities that directly support power generation at that unit would be shared. The electrical switchyard for Fermi 3 would be separate from the existing Fermi 2 switchyard, but the transmission lines from the two switchyards would share common transmission towers as the lines leave the site. Three new 345-kilovolt transmission lines are proposed and would extend offsite along a 29.5-mile route in Monroe, southwest Wayne County, and southeast Washtenaw County. Approximately 10.8 miles of the corridor would be sited along new undeveloped right-of-way. Liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste management systems would be used to collect and treat the radioactive materials produced as byproducts of operating Fermi 3. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS considers energy source alternatives, system design alternatives, four alternative sites, and alternatives related to the location of proposed facilities on the Fermi site. The preliminary recommendation of NRC staff is that the operating licenses be issued as requested. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide for additional large baseload electrical generating capacity to address Michigans expected future peak electric demand. Economic impacts would benefit local economies, particularly Monroe County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 34.5 acres of wetlands and 5.2 acres of open water, and 8.3 acres of wetlands would be permanently lost. Approximately 10 acres of prime farmland would be permanently occupied. The Fermi 3 project footprint would encroach into a portion of the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge. Some dredging in Lake Erie would be needed to accommodate movement of equipment and components by barge. The estimated peak construction workforce of 2,900 would have a temporary adverse impact on traffic on local roadways. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). JF - EPA number: 110364, Volume 1--805 pages, Volume 2--737 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-2105 KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Cooling Systems KW - Dredging KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Lakes KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Lake Erie KW - Michigan KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687184?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ENRICO+FERMI+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNIT+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSE%2C+MONROE+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=ENRICO+FERMI+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNIT+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSE%2C+MONROE+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER, 2010). AN - 913430203; 15118 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy right-of-way (ROW) applications on a project-specific basis. As of August 15, 2011, the BLM had approved 10 utility-scale solar projects on public land and the associated linear ROWs to enable the development of two projects on private land. Also as of August 15, 2011, there were 79 pending solar applications: 31 in Arizona, 20 in California, 25 in Nevada, and three in New Mexico. A draft programmatic EIS issued in December, 2010 considered a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. The preferred solar energy development program alternative identified solar energy zones (SEZs) where development would be prioritized, while the SEZ program alternative would exclude development outside the zones. This draft supplement focuses on modified and new components of the proposed programs. The modified solar energy development program alternative emphasizes development within SEZs and proposes a collaborative process to identify additional SEZs. Utility-scale solar development would be allowed in variance areas outside of SEZs in accordance with the proposed variance process. The modified program alternative also establishes authorization policies and procedures for utility-scale solar energy development on BLM-administered lands. Some of the SEZs analyzed in the draft programmatic EIS were found to have substantial resource conflicts and have been dropped: Bullard Wash in Arizona, Iron Mountain and Pisgah in California, Delamar Valley and East Mormon Mountain in Nevada, and Mason Draw and Red Sands in New Mexico. In addition, the areas of the following SEZs have been substantially reduced: Riverside East in California; De Tilla Gulch, Fourmile East, and Los Mogotes East in Colorado; Amargosa Valley, Dry Lake, and Dry Lake Valley North in Nevada; and Afton in New Mexico. These changes reduce the total acreage potentially available for development in proposed SEZs from 677,000 acres to 285,000 acres. Approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would remain available for ROW application under the modified preferred alternative. This draft supplement also considers a No Action Alternative which would perpetuate the DOE's case-by-case review process for solar projects and one action alternative which specifies programmatic guidance for the analysis and selection of solar projects that DOE will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies (parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems) and photovoltaic technologies. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. The proposed SEZs would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110361, 582 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-49 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/913430203?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER%2C+2010%29.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER%2C+2010%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-04 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 16377130; 15122 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a five-lane arterial roadway, known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), between Provo Airport and the vicinity of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interchange with University Avenue and 1860 South Street in Provo, Utah is proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo and includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. In addition to the PWC, the proposed improvements would include the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot-wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. The 1860 South Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative based on public comment preferences, agency comment preferences, reduced land use impacts, superior transportation performance, lack of visual impacts, lack of noise impacts, fewer commercial property impacts, and practicable avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $57.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new roadway would support planned development in southwest Provo, planned improvements at the Provo Airport, and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 9.3 acres of wetlands, 1,594 linear feet of streams, 93 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, and 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0474D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110365, Final EIS--380 pages, Appendices and Maps--296 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-F KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/16377130?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-04 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Three-dimensional modeling of problems in poro-elasticity via a mixed least-squares method using linear tetrahedral elements AN - 1529791132; 2014-035523 AB - In a previous publication we developed a new mixed least-squares method for poro-elasticity. The approximate solution was obtained via a minimization of a least-squares functional, based upon the equations of equilibrium, the equations of continuity and weak forms of the constitutive relationships for elasticity and Darcy flow. The formulation involved four independent types of variables: displacements, stresses, pore pressures and velocities. All of them were approximated by linear continuous triangles. Encouraged by the computational results, obtained from the two-dimensional implementation of the method, we extended our formulation to three dimensions. In this paper we present numerical examples for the performance of continuous linear tetrahedra within the context of the mixed least-squares method. The initial results suggest that the method works well in the nearly and entirely incompressible limits for elasticity. For poro-elasticity, the obtained pore pressures are stable without exhibiting the oscillations, which are observed when the standard Galerkin formulation is used. Abstract Copyright (2010), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. JF - International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics AU - Tchonkova, Maria AU - Peters, John AU - Sture, Stein Y1 - 2011/10/25/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Oct 25 SP - 1656 EP - 1681 PB - Wiley, Chichester VL - 35 IS - 15 SN - 0363-9061, 0363-9061 KW - soil mechanics KW - Galerkin method KW - Poisson's ratio KW - elasticity KW - numerical models KW - Darcy's law KW - poroelasticity KW - statistical analysis KW - porous materials KW - mathematical models KW - elastic constants KW - least-squares analysis KW - finite element analysis KW - consolidation KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1529791132?accountid=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=Three-dimensional+modeling+of+problems+in+poro-elasticity+via+a+mixed+least-squares+method+using+linear+tetrahedral+elements&rft.au=Tchonkova%2C+Maria%3BPeters%2C+John%3BSture%2C+Stein&rft.aulast=Tchonkova&rft.aufirst=Maria&rft.date=2011-10-25&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=15&rft.spage=1656&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.971 L2 - http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/3312/home LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, United Kingdom N1 - Date revised - 2014-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 6 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 6 tables N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-29 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - consolidation; Darcy's law; elastic constants; elasticity; finite element analysis; Galerkin method; least-squares analysis; mathematical models; numerical models; Poisson's ratio; poroelasticity; porous materials; soil mechanics; statistical analysis DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nag.971 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 13 of 13] T2 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912105302; 15107-0_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit mine to extract locatable minerals such as copper, molybdenum, and silver on the Nogales Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest, Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Rosemont Copper Project site is located on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains, approximately 30 miles south of Tucson. Activity is proposed on approximately 995 acres of private land owned by Rosemont Copper, 3,670 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land, 15 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered land, and 75 acres of State land. The mine life, including construction, operation, reclamation, and closure, would be approximately 25 years. Associated infrastructure would consist of haul and access roads, ore transportation systems, ore processing facilities, waste rock and tailings areas, leach facilities, electrical and water transmission lines, and ancillary facilities integral to the operations, such as the administration building, employee change house, warehouse, analytical laboratory, vehicle servicing facilities, storage facilities, guard house, and truck scale. The roughly circular open-pit mine would measure, at end of mine life, between 6,000 and 6,500 feet in diameter, with a final depth of 1,800 to 2,900 feet, depending on the elevation of the pit rim. The mine would produce a total of 550 million tons of ore and 1.3 billion tons of waste rock. Highway access would be from State Route 83, which connects to Interstate 10 approximately 12 miles north of the mine site. A new two-lane gravel road would be constructed to provide access between State Route 83 and the mine. The project would be located primarily within the Barrel Canyon drainage and its tributaries. Diversion channels would be constructed to intercept runoff from precipitation and route it around the mine facilities for discharge to lower Barrel Canyon, downstream of the project. The project would use 5,000 acre-feet per year of fresh water, for a total over the mine life of approximately 100,000 acre-feet. The water would be pumped from four to six wells located on land owned or leased by Rosemont Copper near the community of Sahuarita in the Santa Cruz Valley and would be piped to the mine. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred Barrel Alternative (Alternative 4), all tailings and waste rock would be placed in Upper Barrel and Wasp Canyons. Two water line alignments and five alternative routes for an aboveground 138-kilovolt transmission line and an associated 14-foot-wide unpaved maintenance road are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow development of the Rosemont ore deposit in a manner that complies with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Production estimates include 234 million pounds of copper, 4.5 million pounds of molybdenum, and 2.7 million ounces of silver annually over 20 years. The preferred alternative would avoid placement of mine waste in McCleary Canyon, thus preserving resource values, including recreation, riparian areas, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in the loss of 39.9 acres of jurisdictional waters of the United States, the conversion of 7,014 to 7,095 acres of habitat, and potential impacts on up to 145,190 acres. Wildlife species impacted would include nine species federally listed as threatened or endangered. All of the action alternatives may result in a loss of population viability for two special status plant species. Numerous prehistoric and historic sites would be impacted. Modeling indicates that remnant heap leach seepage would exceed aquifer water quality standards for cadmium, nickel, and selenium. However, the heap leach facility would be located on top of a stable rock location and designed to collect all possible drainage and solution. Potential grazing activities would be reduced by 1,075 animal unit months. Blasting and equipment operational noise would result in a likely decrease in recreational value in the area. Long-term adverse impacts on astronomy would affect research at Whipple Observatory and Jarnac Observatory. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and Organic Administration Act of 1897. JF - EPA number: 110350, Volume 1--392 pages, Volume 2--486 pages, Appendices--167 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Coronado National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance KW - Organic Administration Act of 1897, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105302?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tucson, Arizona; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 12 of 13] T2 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912105284; 15107-0_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit mine to extract locatable minerals such as copper, molybdenum, and silver on the Nogales Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest, Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Rosemont Copper Project site is located on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains, approximately 30 miles south of Tucson. Activity is proposed on approximately 995 acres of private land owned by Rosemont Copper, 3,670 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land, 15 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered land, and 75 acres of State land. The mine life, including construction, operation, reclamation, and closure, would be approximately 25 years. Associated infrastructure would consist of haul and access roads, ore transportation systems, ore processing facilities, waste rock and tailings areas, leach facilities, electrical and water transmission lines, and ancillary facilities integral to the operations, such as the administration building, employee change house, warehouse, analytical laboratory, vehicle servicing facilities, storage facilities, guard house, and truck scale. The roughly circular open-pit mine would measure, at end of mine life, between 6,000 and 6,500 feet in diameter, with a final depth of 1,800 to 2,900 feet, depending on the elevation of the pit rim. The mine would produce a total of 550 million tons of ore and 1.3 billion tons of waste rock. Highway access would be from State Route 83, which connects to Interstate 10 approximately 12 miles north of the mine site. A new two-lane gravel road would be constructed to provide access between State Route 83 and the mine. The project would be located primarily within the Barrel Canyon drainage and its tributaries. Diversion channels would be constructed to intercept runoff from precipitation and route it around the mine facilities for discharge to lower Barrel Canyon, downstream of the project. The project would use 5,000 acre-feet per year of fresh water, for a total over the mine life of approximately 100,000 acre-feet. The water would be pumped from four to six wells located on land owned or leased by Rosemont Copper near the community of Sahuarita in the Santa Cruz Valley and would be piped to the mine. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred Barrel Alternative (Alternative 4), all tailings and waste rock would be placed in Upper Barrel and Wasp Canyons. Two water line alignments and five alternative routes for an aboveground 138-kilovolt transmission line and an associated 14-foot-wide unpaved maintenance road are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow development of the Rosemont ore deposit in a manner that complies with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Production estimates include 234 million pounds of copper, 4.5 million pounds of molybdenum, and 2.7 million ounces of silver annually over 20 years. The preferred alternative would avoid placement of mine waste in McCleary Canyon, thus preserving resource values, including recreation, riparian areas, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in the loss of 39.9 acres of jurisdictional waters of the United States, the conversion of 7,014 to 7,095 acres of habitat, and potential impacts on up to 145,190 acres. Wildlife species impacted would include nine species federally listed as threatened or endangered. All of the action alternatives may result in a loss of population viability for two special status plant species. Numerous prehistoric and historic sites would be impacted. Modeling indicates that remnant heap leach seepage would exceed aquifer water quality standards for cadmium, nickel, and selenium. However, the heap leach facility would be located on top of a stable rock location and designed to collect all possible drainage and solution. Potential grazing activities would be reduced by 1,075 animal unit months. Blasting and equipment operational noise would result in a likely decrease in recreational value in the area. Long-term adverse impacts on astronomy would affect research at Whipple Observatory and Jarnac Observatory. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and Organic Administration Act of 1897. JF - EPA number: 110350, Volume 1--392 pages, Volume 2--486 pages, Appendices--167 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Coronado National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance KW - Organic Administration Act of 1897, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105284?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tucson, Arizona; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 11 of 13] T2 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912105264; 15107-0_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit mine to extract locatable minerals such as copper, molybdenum, and silver on the Nogales Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest, Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Rosemont Copper Project site is located on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains, approximately 30 miles south of Tucson. Activity is proposed on approximately 995 acres of private land owned by Rosemont Copper, 3,670 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land, 15 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered land, and 75 acres of State land. The mine life, including construction, operation, reclamation, and closure, would be approximately 25 years. Associated infrastructure would consist of haul and access roads, ore transportation systems, ore processing facilities, waste rock and tailings areas, leach facilities, electrical and water transmission lines, and ancillary facilities integral to the operations, such as the administration building, employee change house, warehouse, analytical laboratory, vehicle servicing facilities, storage facilities, guard house, and truck scale. The roughly circular open-pit mine would measure, at end of mine life, between 6,000 and 6,500 feet in diameter, with a final depth of 1,800 to 2,900 feet, depending on the elevation of the pit rim. The mine would produce a total of 550 million tons of ore and 1.3 billion tons of waste rock. Highway access would be from State Route 83, which connects to Interstate 10 approximately 12 miles north of the mine site. A new two-lane gravel road would be constructed to provide access between State Route 83 and the mine. The project would be located primarily within the Barrel Canyon drainage and its tributaries. Diversion channels would be constructed to intercept runoff from precipitation and route it around the mine facilities for discharge to lower Barrel Canyon, downstream of the project. The project would use 5,000 acre-feet per year of fresh water, for a total over the mine life of approximately 100,000 acre-feet. The water would be pumped from four to six wells located on land owned or leased by Rosemont Copper near the community of Sahuarita in the Santa Cruz Valley and would be piped to the mine. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred Barrel Alternative (Alternative 4), all tailings and waste rock would be placed in Upper Barrel and Wasp Canyons. Two water line alignments and five alternative routes for an aboveground 138-kilovolt transmission line and an associated 14-foot-wide unpaved maintenance road are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow development of the Rosemont ore deposit in a manner that complies with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Production estimates include 234 million pounds of copper, 4.5 million pounds of molybdenum, and 2.7 million ounces of silver annually over 20 years. The preferred alternative would avoid placement of mine waste in McCleary Canyon, thus preserving resource values, including recreation, riparian areas, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in the loss of 39.9 acres of jurisdictional waters of the United States, the conversion of 7,014 to 7,095 acres of habitat, and potential impacts on up to 145,190 acres. Wildlife species impacted would include nine species federally listed as threatened or endangered. All of the action alternatives may result in a loss of population viability for two special status plant species. Numerous prehistoric and historic sites would be impacted. Modeling indicates that remnant heap leach seepage would exceed aquifer water quality standards for cadmium, nickel, and selenium. However, the heap leach facility would be located on top of a stable rock location and designed to collect all possible drainage and solution. Potential grazing activities would be reduced by 1,075 animal unit months. Blasting and equipment operational noise would result in a likely decrease in recreational value in the area. Long-term adverse impacts on astronomy would affect research at Whipple Observatory and Jarnac Observatory. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and Organic Administration Act of 1897. JF - EPA number: 110350, Volume 1--392 pages, Volume 2--486 pages, Appendices--167 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Coronado National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance KW - Organic Administration Act of 1897, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105264?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tucson, Arizona; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 4 of 13] T2 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912105234; 15107-0_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit mine to extract locatable minerals such as copper, molybdenum, and silver on the Nogales Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest, Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Rosemont Copper Project site is located on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains, approximately 30 miles south of Tucson. Activity is proposed on approximately 995 acres of private land owned by Rosemont Copper, 3,670 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land, 15 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered land, and 75 acres of State land. The mine life, including construction, operation, reclamation, and closure, would be approximately 25 years. Associated infrastructure would consist of haul and access roads, ore transportation systems, ore processing facilities, waste rock and tailings areas, leach facilities, electrical and water transmission lines, and ancillary facilities integral to the operations, such as the administration building, employee change house, warehouse, analytical laboratory, vehicle servicing facilities, storage facilities, guard house, and truck scale. The roughly circular open-pit mine would measure, at end of mine life, between 6,000 and 6,500 feet in diameter, with a final depth of 1,800 to 2,900 feet, depending on the elevation of the pit rim. The mine would produce a total of 550 million tons of ore and 1.3 billion tons of waste rock. Highway access would be from State Route 83, which connects to Interstate 10 approximately 12 miles north of the mine site. A new two-lane gravel road would be constructed to provide access between State Route 83 and the mine. The project would be located primarily within the Barrel Canyon drainage and its tributaries. Diversion channels would be constructed to intercept runoff from precipitation and route it around the mine facilities for discharge to lower Barrel Canyon, downstream of the project. The project would use 5,000 acre-feet per year of fresh water, for a total over the mine life of approximately 100,000 acre-feet. The water would be pumped from four to six wells located on land owned or leased by Rosemont Copper near the community of Sahuarita in the Santa Cruz Valley and would be piped to the mine. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred Barrel Alternative (Alternative 4), all tailings and waste rock would be placed in Upper Barrel and Wasp Canyons. Two water line alignments and five alternative routes for an aboveground 138-kilovolt transmission line and an associated 14-foot-wide unpaved maintenance road are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow development of the Rosemont ore deposit in a manner that complies with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Production estimates include 234 million pounds of copper, 4.5 million pounds of molybdenum, and 2.7 million ounces of silver annually over 20 years. The preferred alternative would avoid placement of mine waste in McCleary Canyon, thus preserving resource values, including recreation, riparian areas, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in the loss of 39.9 acres of jurisdictional waters of the United States, the conversion of 7,014 to 7,095 acres of habitat, and potential impacts on up to 145,190 acres. Wildlife species impacted would include nine species federally listed as threatened or endangered. All of the action alternatives may result in a loss of population viability for two special status plant species. Numerous prehistoric and historic sites would be impacted. Modeling indicates that remnant heap leach seepage would exceed aquifer water quality standards for cadmium, nickel, and selenium. However, the heap leach facility would be located on top of a stable rock location and designed to collect all possible drainage and solution. Potential grazing activities would be reduced by 1,075 animal unit months. Blasting and equipment operational noise would result in a likely decrease in recreational value in the area. Long-term adverse impacts on astronomy would affect research at Whipple Observatory and Jarnac Observatory. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and Organic Administration Act of 1897. JF - EPA number: 110350, Volume 1--392 pages, Volume 2--486 pages, Appendices--167 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Coronado National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance KW - Organic Administration Act of 1897, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105234?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tucson, Arizona; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 3 of 13] T2 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912105215; 15107-0_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit mine to extract locatable minerals such as copper, molybdenum, and silver on the Nogales Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest, Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Rosemont Copper Project site is located on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains, approximately 30 miles south of Tucson. Activity is proposed on approximately 995 acres of private land owned by Rosemont Copper, 3,670 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land, 15 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered land, and 75 acres of State land. The mine life, including construction, operation, reclamation, and closure, would be approximately 25 years. Associated infrastructure would consist of haul and access roads, ore transportation systems, ore processing facilities, waste rock and tailings areas, leach facilities, electrical and water transmission lines, and ancillary facilities integral to the operations, such as the administration building, employee change house, warehouse, analytical laboratory, vehicle servicing facilities, storage facilities, guard house, and truck scale. The roughly circular open-pit mine would measure, at end of mine life, between 6,000 and 6,500 feet in diameter, with a final depth of 1,800 to 2,900 feet, depending on the elevation of the pit rim. The mine would produce a total of 550 million tons of ore and 1.3 billion tons of waste rock. Highway access would be from State Route 83, which connects to Interstate 10 approximately 12 miles north of the mine site. A new two-lane gravel road would be constructed to provide access between State Route 83 and the mine. The project would be located primarily within the Barrel Canyon drainage and its tributaries. Diversion channels would be constructed to intercept runoff from precipitation and route it around the mine facilities for discharge to lower Barrel Canyon, downstream of the project. The project would use 5,000 acre-feet per year of fresh water, for a total over the mine life of approximately 100,000 acre-feet. The water would be pumped from four to six wells located on land owned or leased by Rosemont Copper near the community of Sahuarita in the Santa Cruz Valley and would be piped to the mine. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred Barrel Alternative (Alternative 4), all tailings and waste rock would be placed in Upper Barrel and Wasp Canyons. Two water line alignments and five alternative routes for an aboveground 138-kilovolt transmission line and an associated 14-foot-wide unpaved maintenance road are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow development of the Rosemont ore deposit in a manner that complies with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Production estimates include 234 million pounds of copper, 4.5 million pounds of molybdenum, and 2.7 million ounces of silver annually over 20 years. The preferred alternative would avoid placement of mine waste in McCleary Canyon, thus preserving resource values, including recreation, riparian areas, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in the loss of 39.9 acres of jurisdictional waters of the United States, the conversion of 7,014 to 7,095 acres of habitat, and potential impacts on up to 145,190 acres. Wildlife species impacted would include nine species federally listed as threatened or endangered. All of the action alternatives may result in a loss of population viability for two special status plant species. Numerous prehistoric and historic sites would be impacted. Modeling indicates that remnant heap leach seepage would exceed aquifer water quality standards for cadmium, nickel, and selenium. However, the heap leach facility would be located on top of a stable rock location and designed to collect all possible drainage and solution. Potential grazing activities would be reduced by 1,075 animal unit months. Blasting and equipment operational noise would result in a likely decrease in recreational value in the area. Long-term adverse impacts on astronomy would affect research at Whipple Observatory and Jarnac Observatory. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and Organic Administration Act of 1897. JF - EPA number: 110350, Volume 1--392 pages, Volume 2--486 pages, Appendices--167 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Coronado National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance KW - Organic Administration Act of 1897, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105215?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tucson, Arizona; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 28 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912105184; 15108-1_0028 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105184?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 26 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912105125; 15108-1_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105125?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 25 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912105083; 15108-1_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105083?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 24 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912105053; 15108-1_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105053?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 10 of 13] T2 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912103696; 15107-0_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit mine to extract locatable minerals such as copper, molybdenum, and silver on the Nogales Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest, Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Rosemont Copper Project site is located on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains, approximately 30 miles south of Tucson. Activity is proposed on approximately 995 acres of private land owned by Rosemont Copper, 3,670 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land, 15 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered land, and 75 acres of State land. The mine life, including construction, operation, reclamation, and closure, would be approximately 25 years. Associated infrastructure would consist of haul and access roads, ore transportation systems, ore processing facilities, waste rock and tailings areas, leach facilities, electrical and water transmission lines, and ancillary facilities integral to the operations, such as the administration building, employee change house, warehouse, analytical laboratory, vehicle servicing facilities, storage facilities, guard house, and truck scale. The roughly circular open-pit mine would measure, at end of mine life, between 6,000 and 6,500 feet in diameter, with a final depth of 1,800 to 2,900 feet, depending on the elevation of the pit rim. The mine would produce a total of 550 million tons of ore and 1.3 billion tons of waste rock. Highway access would be from State Route 83, which connects to Interstate 10 approximately 12 miles north of the mine site. A new two-lane gravel road would be constructed to provide access between State Route 83 and the mine. The project would be located primarily within the Barrel Canyon drainage and its tributaries. Diversion channels would be constructed to intercept runoff from precipitation and route it around the mine facilities for discharge to lower Barrel Canyon, downstream of the project. The project would use 5,000 acre-feet per year of fresh water, for a total over the mine life of approximately 100,000 acre-feet. The water would be pumped from four to six wells located on land owned or leased by Rosemont Copper near the community of Sahuarita in the Santa Cruz Valley and would be piped to the mine. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred Barrel Alternative (Alternative 4), all tailings and waste rock would be placed in Upper Barrel and Wasp Canyons. Two water line alignments and five alternative routes for an aboveground 138-kilovolt transmission line and an associated 14-foot-wide unpaved maintenance road are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow development of the Rosemont ore deposit in a manner that complies with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Production estimates include 234 million pounds of copper, 4.5 million pounds of molybdenum, and 2.7 million ounces of silver annually over 20 years. The preferred alternative would avoid placement of mine waste in McCleary Canyon, thus preserving resource values, including recreation, riparian areas, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in the loss of 39.9 acres of jurisdictional waters of the United States, the conversion of 7,014 to 7,095 acres of habitat, and potential impacts on up to 145,190 acres. Wildlife species impacted would include nine species federally listed as threatened or endangered. All of the action alternatives may result in a loss of population viability for two special status plant species. Numerous prehistoric and historic sites would be impacted. Modeling indicates that remnant heap leach seepage would exceed aquifer water quality standards for cadmium, nickel, and selenium. However, the heap leach facility would be located on top of a stable rock location and designed to collect all possible drainage and solution. Potential grazing activities would be reduced by 1,075 animal unit months. Blasting and equipment operational noise would result in a likely decrease in recreational value in the area. Long-term adverse impacts on astronomy would affect research at Whipple Observatory and Jarnac Observatory. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and Organic Administration Act of 1897. JF - EPA number: 110350, Volume 1--392 pages, Volume 2--486 pages, Appendices--167 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Coronado National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance KW - Organic Administration Act of 1897, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912103696?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tucson, Arizona; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 9 of 13] T2 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912103694; 15107-0_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit mine to extract locatable minerals such as copper, molybdenum, and silver on the Nogales Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest, Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Rosemont Copper Project site is located on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains, approximately 30 miles south of Tucson. Activity is proposed on approximately 995 acres of private land owned by Rosemont Copper, 3,670 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land, 15 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered land, and 75 acres of State land. The mine life, including construction, operation, reclamation, and closure, would be approximately 25 years. Associated infrastructure would consist of haul and access roads, ore transportation systems, ore processing facilities, waste rock and tailings areas, leach facilities, electrical and water transmission lines, and ancillary facilities integral to the operations, such as the administration building, employee change house, warehouse, analytical laboratory, vehicle servicing facilities, storage facilities, guard house, and truck scale. The roughly circular open-pit mine would measure, at end of mine life, between 6,000 and 6,500 feet in diameter, with a final depth of 1,800 to 2,900 feet, depending on the elevation of the pit rim. The mine would produce a total of 550 million tons of ore and 1.3 billion tons of waste rock. Highway access would be from State Route 83, which connects to Interstate 10 approximately 12 miles north of the mine site. A new two-lane gravel road would be constructed to provide access between State Route 83 and the mine. The project would be located primarily within the Barrel Canyon drainage and its tributaries. Diversion channels would be constructed to intercept runoff from precipitation and route it around the mine facilities for discharge to lower Barrel Canyon, downstream of the project. The project would use 5,000 acre-feet per year of fresh water, for a total over the mine life of approximately 100,000 acre-feet. The water would be pumped from four to six wells located on land owned or leased by Rosemont Copper near the community of Sahuarita in the Santa Cruz Valley and would be piped to the mine. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred Barrel Alternative (Alternative 4), all tailings and waste rock would be placed in Upper Barrel and Wasp Canyons. Two water line alignments and five alternative routes for an aboveground 138-kilovolt transmission line and an associated 14-foot-wide unpaved maintenance road are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow development of the Rosemont ore deposit in a manner that complies with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Production estimates include 234 million pounds of copper, 4.5 million pounds of molybdenum, and 2.7 million ounces of silver annually over 20 years. The preferred alternative would avoid placement of mine waste in McCleary Canyon, thus preserving resource values, including recreation, riparian areas, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in the loss of 39.9 acres of jurisdictional waters of the United States, the conversion of 7,014 to 7,095 acres of habitat, and potential impacts on up to 145,190 acres. Wildlife species impacted would include nine species federally listed as threatened or endangered. All of the action alternatives may result in a loss of population viability for two special status plant species. Numerous prehistoric and historic sites would be impacted. Modeling indicates that remnant heap leach seepage would exceed aquifer water quality standards for cadmium, nickel, and selenium. However, the heap leach facility would be located on top of a stable rock location and designed to collect all possible drainage and solution. Potential grazing activities would be reduced by 1,075 animal unit months. Blasting and equipment operational noise would result in a likely decrease in recreational value in the area. Long-term adverse impacts on astronomy would affect research at Whipple Observatory and Jarnac Observatory. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and Organic Administration Act of 1897. JF - EPA number: 110350, Volume 1--392 pages, Volume 2--486 pages, Appendices--167 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Coronado National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance KW - Organic Administration Act of 1897, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912103694?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tucson, Arizona; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 8 of 13] T2 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912103691; 15107-0_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit mine to extract locatable minerals such as copper, molybdenum, and silver on the Nogales Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest, Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Rosemont Copper Project site is located on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains, approximately 30 miles south of Tucson. Activity is proposed on approximately 995 acres of private land owned by Rosemont Copper, 3,670 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land, 15 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered land, and 75 acres of State land. The mine life, including construction, operation, reclamation, and closure, would be approximately 25 years. Associated infrastructure would consist of haul and access roads, ore transportation systems, ore processing facilities, waste rock and tailings areas, leach facilities, electrical and water transmission lines, and ancillary facilities integral to the operations, such as the administration building, employee change house, warehouse, analytical laboratory, vehicle servicing facilities, storage facilities, guard house, and truck scale. The roughly circular open-pit mine would measure, at end of mine life, between 6,000 and 6,500 feet in diameter, with a final depth of 1,800 to 2,900 feet, depending on the elevation of the pit rim. The mine would produce a total of 550 million tons of ore and 1.3 billion tons of waste rock. Highway access would be from State Route 83, which connects to Interstate 10 approximately 12 miles north of the mine site. A new two-lane gravel road would be constructed to provide access between State Route 83 and the mine. The project would be located primarily within the Barrel Canyon drainage and its tributaries. Diversion channels would be constructed to intercept runoff from precipitation and route it around the mine facilities for discharge to lower Barrel Canyon, downstream of the project. The project would use 5,000 acre-feet per year of fresh water, for a total over the mine life of approximately 100,000 acre-feet. The water would be pumped from four to six wells located on land owned or leased by Rosemont Copper near the community of Sahuarita in the Santa Cruz Valley and would be piped to the mine. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred Barrel Alternative (Alternative 4), all tailings and waste rock would be placed in Upper Barrel and Wasp Canyons. Two water line alignments and five alternative routes for an aboveground 138-kilovolt transmission line and an associated 14-foot-wide unpaved maintenance road are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow development of the Rosemont ore deposit in a manner that complies with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Production estimates include 234 million pounds of copper, 4.5 million pounds of molybdenum, and 2.7 million ounces of silver annually over 20 years. The preferred alternative would avoid placement of mine waste in McCleary Canyon, thus preserving resource values, including recreation, riparian areas, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in the loss of 39.9 acres of jurisdictional waters of the United States, the conversion of 7,014 to 7,095 acres of habitat, and potential impacts on up to 145,190 acres. Wildlife species impacted would include nine species federally listed as threatened or endangered. All of the action alternatives may result in a loss of population viability for two special status plant species. Numerous prehistoric and historic sites would be impacted. Modeling indicates that remnant heap leach seepage would exceed aquifer water quality standards for cadmium, nickel, and selenium. However, the heap leach facility would be located on top of a stable rock location and designed to collect all possible drainage and solution. Potential grazing activities would be reduced by 1,075 animal unit months. Blasting and equipment operational noise would result in a likely decrease in recreational value in the area. Long-term adverse impacts on astronomy would affect research at Whipple Observatory and Jarnac Observatory. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and Organic Administration Act of 1897. JF - EPA number: 110350, Volume 1--392 pages, Volume 2--486 pages, Appendices--167 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Coronado National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance KW - Organic Administration Act of 1897, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912103691?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tucson, Arizona; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 7 of 13] T2 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912103682; 15107-0_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit mine to extract locatable minerals such as copper, molybdenum, and silver on the Nogales Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest, Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Rosemont Copper Project site is located on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains, approximately 30 miles south of Tucson. Activity is proposed on approximately 995 acres of private land owned by Rosemont Copper, 3,670 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land, 15 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered land, and 75 acres of State land. The mine life, including construction, operation, reclamation, and closure, would be approximately 25 years. Associated infrastructure would consist of haul and access roads, ore transportation systems, ore processing facilities, waste rock and tailings areas, leach facilities, electrical and water transmission lines, and ancillary facilities integral to the operations, such as the administration building, employee change house, warehouse, analytical laboratory, vehicle servicing facilities, storage facilities, guard house, and truck scale. The roughly circular open-pit mine would measure, at end of mine life, between 6,000 and 6,500 feet in diameter, with a final depth of 1,800 to 2,900 feet, depending on the elevation of the pit rim. The mine would produce a total of 550 million tons of ore and 1.3 billion tons of waste rock. Highway access would be from State Route 83, which connects to Interstate 10 approximately 12 miles north of the mine site. A new two-lane gravel road would be constructed to provide access between State Route 83 and the mine. The project would be located primarily within the Barrel Canyon drainage and its tributaries. Diversion channels would be constructed to intercept runoff from precipitation and route it around the mine facilities for discharge to lower Barrel Canyon, downstream of the project. The project would use 5,000 acre-feet per year of fresh water, for a total over the mine life of approximately 100,000 acre-feet. The water would be pumped from four to six wells located on land owned or leased by Rosemont Copper near the community of Sahuarita in the Santa Cruz Valley and would be piped to the mine. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred Barrel Alternative (Alternative 4), all tailings and waste rock would be placed in Upper Barrel and Wasp Canyons. Two water line alignments and five alternative routes for an aboveground 138-kilovolt transmission line and an associated 14-foot-wide unpaved maintenance road are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow development of the Rosemont ore deposit in a manner that complies with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Production estimates include 234 million pounds of copper, 4.5 million pounds of molybdenum, and 2.7 million ounces of silver annually over 20 years. The preferred alternative would avoid placement of mine waste in McCleary Canyon, thus preserving resource values, including recreation, riparian areas, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in the loss of 39.9 acres of jurisdictional waters of the United States, the conversion of 7,014 to 7,095 acres of habitat, and potential impacts on up to 145,190 acres. Wildlife species impacted would include nine species federally listed as threatened or endangered. All of the action alternatives may result in a loss of population viability for two special status plant species. Numerous prehistoric and historic sites would be impacted. Modeling indicates that remnant heap leach seepage would exceed aquifer water quality standards for cadmium, nickel, and selenium. However, the heap leach facility would be located on top of a stable rock location and designed to collect all possible drainage and solution. Potential grazing activities would be reduced by 1,075 animal unit months. Blasting and equipment operational noise would result in a likely decrease in recreational value in the area. Long-term adverse impacts on astronomy would affect research at Whipple Observatory and Jarnac Observatory. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and Organic Administration Act of 1897. JF - EPA number: 110350, Volume 1--392 pages, Volume 2--486 pages, Appendices--167 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Coronado National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance KW - Organic Administration Act of 1897, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912103682?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tucson, Arizona; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 23 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912102588; 15108-1_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102588?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 22 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912102561; 15108-1_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102561?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 21 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912102545; 15108-1_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102545?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 20 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912102529; 15108-1_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102529?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 19 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912102516; 15108-1_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102516?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 18 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912102506; 15108-1_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102506?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 15 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912102491; 15108-1_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102491?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 14 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912102474; 15108-1_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102474?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 10 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912102458; 15108-1_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102458?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 9 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912102437; 15108-1_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102437?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 34 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912102041; 15108-1_0034 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102041?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 33 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912102030; 15108-1_0033 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102030?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 32 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912102018; 15108-1_0032 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102018?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 31 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912102011; 15108-1_0031 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102011?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 30 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912102001; 15108-1_0030 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102001?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 29 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912101992; 15108-1_0029 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912101992?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 6 of 13] T2 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912101832; 15107-0_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit mine to extract locatable minerals such as copper, molybdenum, and silver on the Nogales Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest, Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Rosemont Copper Project site is located on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains, approximately 30 miles south of Tucson. Activity is proposed on approximately 995 acres of private land owned by Rosemont Copper, 3,670 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land, 15 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered land, and 75 acres of State land. The mine life, including construction, operation, reclamation, and closure, would be approximately 25 years. Associated infrastructure would consist of haul and access roads, ore transportation systems, ore processing facilities, waste rock and tailings areas, leach facilities, electrical and water transmission lines, and ancillary facilities integral to the operations, such as the administration building, employee change house, warehouse, analytical laboratory, vehicle servicing facilities, storage facilities, guard house, and truck scale. The roughly circular open-pit mine would measure, at end of mine life, between 6,000 and 6,500 feet in diameter, with a final depth of 1,800 to 2,900 feet, depending on the elevation of the pit rim. The mine would produce a total of 550 million tons of ore and 1.3 billion tons of waste rock. Highway access would be from State Route 83, which connects to Interstate 10 approximately 12 miles north of the mine site. A new two-lane gravel road would be constructed to provide access between State Route 83 and the mine. The project would be located primarily within the Barrel Canyon drainage and its tributaries. Diversion channels would be constructed to intercept runoff from precipitation and route it around the mine facilities for discharge to lower Barrel Canyon, downstream of the project. The project would use 5,000 acre-feet per year of fresh water, for a total over the mine life of approximately 100,000 acre-feet. The water would be pumped from four to six wells located on land owned or leased by Rosemont Copper near the community of Sahuarita in the Santa Cruz Valley and would be piped to the mine. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred Barrel Alternative (Alternative 4), all tailings and waste rock would be placed in Upper Barrel and Wasp Canyons. Two water line alignments and five alternative routes for an aboveground 138-kilovolt transmission line and an associated 14-foot-wide unpaved maintenance road are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow development of the Rosemont ore deposit in a manner that complies with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Production estimates include 234 million pounds of copper, 4.5 million pounds of molybdenum, and 2.7 million ounces of silver annually over 20 years. The preferred alternative would avoid placement of mine waste in McCleary Canyon, thus preserving resource values, including recreation, riparian areas, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in the loss of 39.9 acres of jurisdictional waters of the United States, the conversion of 7,014 to 7,095 acres of habitat, and potential impacts on up to 145,190 acres. Wildlife species impacted would include nine species federally listed as threatened or endangered. All of the action alternatives may result in a loss of population viability for two special status plant species. Numerous prehistoric and historic sites would be impacted. Modeling indicates that remnant heap leach seepage would exceed aquifer water quality standards for cadmium, nickel, and selenium. However, the heap leach facility would be located on top of a stable rock location and designed to collect all possible drainage and solution. Potential grazing activities would be reduced by 1,075 animal unit months. Blasting and equipment operational noise would result in a likely decrease in recreational value in the area. Long-term adverse impacts on astronomy would affect research at Whipple Observatory and Jarnac Observatory. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and Organic Administration Act of 1897. JF - EPA number: 110350, Volume 1--392 pages, Volume 2--486 pages, Appendices--167 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Coronado National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance KW - Organic Administration Act of 1897, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912101832?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tucson, Arizona; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 5 of 13] T2 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912101813; 15107-0_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit mine to extract locatable minerals such as copper, molybdenum, and silver on the Nogales Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest, Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Rosemont Copper Project site is located on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains, approximately 30 miles south of Tucson. Activity is proposed on approximately 995 acres of private land owned by Rosemont Copper, 3,670 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land, 15 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered land, and 75 acres of State land. The mine life, including construction, operation, reclamation, and closure, would be approximately 25 years. Associated infrastructure would consist of haul and access roads, ore transportation systems, ore processing facilities, waste rock and tailings areas, leach facilities, electrical and water transmission lines, and ancillary facilities integral to the operations, such as the administration building, employee change house, warehouse, analytical laboratory, vehicle servicing facilities, storage facilities, guard house, and truck scale. The roughly circular open-pit mine would measure, at end of mine life, between 6,000 and 6,500 feet in diameter, with a final depth of 1,800 to 2,900 feet, depending on the elevation of the pit rim. The mine would produce a total of 550 million tons of ore and 1.3 billion tons of waste rock. Highway access would be from State Route 83, which connects to Interstate 10 approximately 12 miles north of the mine site. A new two-lane gravel road would be constructed to provide access between State Route 83 and the mine. The project would be located primarily within the Barrel Canyon drainage and its tributaries. Diversion channels would be constructed to intercept runoff from precipitation and route it around the mine facilities for discharge to lower Barrel Canyon, downstream of the project. The project would use 5,000 acre-feet per year of fresh water, for a total over the mine life of approximately 100,000 acre-feet. The water would be pumped from four to six wells located on land owned or leased by Rosemont Copper near the community of Sahuarita in the Santa Cruz Valley and would be piped to the mine. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred Barrel Alternative (Alternative 4), all tailings and waste rock would be placed in Upper Barrel and Wasp Canyons. Two water line alignments and five alternative routes for an aboveground 138-kilovolt transmission line and an associated 14-foot-wide unpaved maintenance road are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow development of the Rosemont ore deposit in a manner that complies with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Production estimates include 234 million pounds of copper, 4.5 million pounds of molybdenum, and 2.7 million ounces of silver annually over 20 years. The preferred alternative would avoid placement of mine waste in McCleary Canyon, thus preserving resource values, including recreation, riparian areas, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in the loss of 39.9 acres of jurisdictional waters of the United States, the conversion of 7,014 to 7,095 acres of habitat, and potential impacts on up to 145,190 acres. Wildlife species impacted would include nine species federally listed as threatened or endangered. All of the action alternatives may result in a loss of population viability for two special status plant species. Numerous prehistoric and historic sites would be impacted. Modeling indicates that remnant heap leach seepage would exceed aquifer water quality standards for cadmium, nickel, and selenium. However, the heap leach facility would be located on top of a stable rock location and designed to collect all possible drainage and solution. Potential grazing activities would be reduced by 1,075 animal unit months. Blasting and equipment operational noise would result in a likely decrease in recreational value in the area. Long-term adverse impacts on astronomy would affect research at Whipple Observatory and Jarnac Observatory. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and Organic Administration Act of 1897. JF - EPA number: 110350, Volume 1--392 pages, Volume 2--486 pages, Appendices--167 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Coronado National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance KW - Organic Administration Act of 1897, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912101813?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tucson, Arizona; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 2 of 13] T2 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912101476; 15107-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit mine to extract locatable minerals such as copper, molybdenum, and silver on the Nogales Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest, Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Rosemont Copper Project site is located on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains, approximately 30 miles south of Tucson. Activity is proposed on approximately 995 acres of private land owned by Rosemont Copper, 3,670 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land, 15 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered land, and 75 acres of State land. The mine life, including construction, operation, reclamation, and closure, would be approximately 25 years. Associated infrastructure would consist of haul and access roads, ore transportation systems, ore processing facilities, waste rock and tailings areas, leach facilities, electrical and water transmission lines, and ancillary facilities integral to the operations, such as the administration building, employee change house, warehouse, analytical laboratory, vehicle servicing facilities, storage facilities, guard house, and truck scale. The roughly circular open-pit mine would measure, at end of mine life, between 6,000 and 6,500 feet in diameter, with a final depth of 1,800 to 2,900 feet, depending on the elevation of the pit rim. The mine would produce a total of 550 million tons of ore and 1.3 billion tons of waste rock. Highway access would be from State Route 83, which connects to Interstate 10 approximately 12 miles north of the mine site. A new two-lane gravel road would be constructed to provide access between State Route 83 and the mine. The project would be located primarily within the Barrel Canyon drainage and its tributaries. Diversion channels would be constructed to intercept runoff from precipitation and route it around the mine facilities for discharge to lower Barrel Canyon, downstream of the project. The project would use 5,000 acre-feet per year of fresh water, for a total over the mine life of approximately 100,000 acre-feet. The water would be pumped from four to six wells located on land owned or leased by Rosemont Copper near the community of Sahuarita in the Santa Cruz Valley and would be piped to the mine. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred Barrel Alternative (Alternative 4), all tailings and waste rock would be placed in Upper Barrel and Wasp Canyons. Two water line alignments and five alternative routes for an aboveground 138-kilovolt transmission line and an associated 14-foot-wide unpaved maintenance road are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow development of the Rosemont ore deposit in a manner that complies with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Production estimates include 234 million pounds of copper, 4.5 million pounds of molybdenum, and 2.7 million ounces of silver annually over 20 years. The preferred alternative would avoid placement of mine waste in McCleary Canyon, thus preserving resource values, including recreation, riparian areas, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in the loss of 39.9 acres of jurisdictional waters of the United States, the conversion of 7,014 to 7,095 acres of habitat, and potential impacts on up to 145,190 acres. Wildlife species impacted would include nine species federally listed as threatened or endangered. All of the action alternatives may result in a loss of population viability for two special status plant species. Numerous prehistoric and historic sites would be impacted. Modeling indicates that remnant heap leach seepage would exceed aquifer water quality standards for cadmium, nickel, and selenium. However, the heap leach facility would be located on top of a stable rock location and designed to collect all possible drainage and solution. Potential grazing activities would be reduced by 1,075 animal unit months. Blasting and equipment operational noise would result in a likely decrease in recreational value in the area. Long-term adverse impacts on astronomy would affect research at Whipple Observatory and Jarnac Observatory. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and Organic Administration Act of 1897. JF - EPA number: 110350, Volume 1--392 pages, Volume 2--486 pages, Appendices--167 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Coronado National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance KW - Organic Administration Act of 1897, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912101476?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tucson, Arizona; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 1 of 13] T2 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912101467; 15107-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit mine to extract locatable minerals such as copper, molybdenum, and silver on the Nogales Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest, Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Rosemont Copper Project site is located on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains, approximately 30 miles south of Tucson. Activity is proposed on approximately 995 acres of private land owned by Rosemont Copper, 3,670 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land, 15 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered land, and 75 acres of State land. The mine life, including construction, operation, reclamation, and closure, would be approximately 25 years. Associated infrastructure would consist of haul and access roads, ore transportation systems, ore processing facilities, waste rock and tailings areas, leach facilities, electrical and water transmission lines, and ancillary facilities integral to the operations, such as the administration building, employee change house, warehouse, analytical laboratory, vehicle servicing facilities, storage facilities, guard house, and truck scale. The roughly circular open-pit mine would measure, at end of mine life, between 6,000 and 6,500 feet in diameter, with a final depth of 1,800 to 2,900 feet, depending on the elevation of the pit rim. The mine would produce a total of 550 million tons of ore and 1.3 billion tons of waste rock. Highway access would be from State Route 83, which connects to Interstate 10 approximately 12 miles north of the mine site. A new two-lane gravel road would be constructed to provide access between State Route 83 and the mine. The project would be located primarily within the Barrel Canyon drainage and its tributaries. Diversion channels would be constructed to intercept runoff from precipitation and route it around the mine facilities for discharge to lower Barrel Canyon, downstream of the project. The project would use 5,000 acre-feet per year of fresh water, for a total over the mine life of approximately 100,000 acre-feet. The water would be pumped from four to six wells located on land owned or leased by Rosemont Copper near the community of Sahuarita in the Santa Cruz Valley and would be piped to the mine. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred Barrel Alternative (Alternative 4), all tailings and waste rock would be placed in Upper Barrel and Wasp Canyons. Two water line alignments and five alternative routes for an aboveground 138-kilovolt transmission line and an associated 14-foot-wide unpaved maintenance road are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow development of the Rosemont ore deposit in a manner that complies with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Production estimates include 234 million pounds of copper, 4.5 million pounds of molybdenum, and 2.7 million ounces of silver annually over 20 years. The preferred alternative would avoid placement of mine waste in McCleary Canyon, thus preserving resource values, including recreation, riparian areas, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in the loss of 39.9 acres of jurisdictional waters of the United States, the conversion of 7,014 to 7,095 acres of habitat, and potential impacts on up to 145,190 acres. Wildlife species impacted would include nine species federally listed as threatened or endangered. All of the action alternatives may result in a loss of population viability for two special status plant species. Numerous prehistoric and historic sites would be impacted. Modeling indicates that remnant heap leach seepage would exceed aquifer water quality standards for cadmium, nickel, and selenium. However, the heap leach facility would be located on top of a stable rock location and designed to collect all possible drainage and solution. Potential grazing activities would be reduced by 1,075 animal unit months. Blasting and equipment operational noise would result in a likely decrease in recreational value in the area. Long-term adverse impacts on astronomy would affect research at Whipple Observatory and Jarnac Observatory. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and Organic Administration Act of 1897. JF - EPA number: 110350, Volume 1--392 pages, Volume 2--486 pages, Appendices--167 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Coronado National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance KW - Organic Administration Act of 1897, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912101467?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tucson, Arizona; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 36 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912101438; 15108-1_0036 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912101438?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 35 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912101411; 15108-1_0035 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912101411?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 5 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912100955; 15108-1_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100955?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 4 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912100945; 15108-1_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100945?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 3 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912100935; 15108-1_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100935?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 17 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912100768; 15108-1_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100768?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 16 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912100748; 15108-1_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100748?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 13 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912100728; 15108-1_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100728?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 12 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912100716; 15108-1_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100716?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 11 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912100688; 15108-1_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100688?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 8 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912100604; 15108-1_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100604?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 7 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912100579; 15108-1_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100579?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 6 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912100273; 15108-1_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100273?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 2 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912099902; 15108-1_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912099902?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 911145069; 15108 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/911145069?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 911145065; 15107 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit mine to extract locatable minerals such as copper, molybdenum, and silver on the Nogales Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest, Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Rosemont Copper Project site is located on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains, approximately 30 miles south of Tucson. Activity is proposed on approximately 995 acres of private land owned by Rosemont Copper, 3,670 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land, 15 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered land, and 75 acres of State land. The mine life, including construction, operation, reclamation, and closure, would be approximately 25 years. Associated infrastructure would consist of haul and access roads, ore transportation systems, ore processing facilities, waste rock and tailings areas, leach facilities, electrical and water transmission lines, and ancillary facilities integral to the operations, such as the administration building, employee change house, warehouse, analytical laboratory, vehicle servicing facilities, storage facilities, guard house, and truck scale. The roughly circular open-pit mine would measure, at end of mine life, between 6,000 and 6,500 feet in diameter, with a final depth of 1,800 to 2,900 feet, depending on the elevation of the pit rim. The mine would produce a total of 550 million tons of ore and 1.3 billion tons of waste rock. Highway access would be from State Route 83, which connects to Interstate 10 approximately 12 miles north of the mine site. A new two-lane gravel road would be constructed to provide access between State Route 83 and the mine. The project would be located primarily within the Barrel Canyon drainage and its tributaries. Diversion channels would be constructed to intercept runoff from precipitation and route it around the mine facilities for discharge to lower Barrel Canyon, downstream of the project. The project would use 5,000 acre-feet per year of fresh water, for a total over the mine life of approximately 100,000 acre-feet. The water would be pumped from four to six wells located on land owned or leased by Rosemont Copper near the community of Sahuarita in the Santa Cruz Valley and would be piped to the mine. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred Barrel Alternative (Alternative 4), all tailings and waste rock would be placed in Upper Barrel and Wasp Canyons. Two water line alignments and five alternative routes for an aboveground 138-kilovolt transmission line and an associated 14-foot-wide unpaved maintenance road are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow development of the Rosemont ore deposit in a manner that complies with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Production estimates include 234 million pounds of copper, 4.5 million pounds of molybdenum, and 2.7 million ounces of silver annually over 20 years. The preferred alternative would avoid placement of mine waste in McCleary Canyon, thus preserving resource values, including recreation, riparian areas, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in the loss of 39.9 acres of jurisdictional waters of the United States, the conversion of 7,014 to 7,095 acres of habitat, and potential impacts on up to 145,190 acres. Wildlife species impacted would include nine species federally listed as threatened or endangered. All of the action alternatives may result in a loss of population viability for two special status plant species. Numerous prehistoric and historic sites would be impacted. Modeling indicates that remnant heap leach seepage would exceed aquifer water quality standards for cadmium, nickel, and selenium. However, the heap leach facility would be located on top of a stable rock location and designed to collect all possible drainage and solution. Potential grazing activities would be reduced by 1,075 animal unit months. Blasting and equipment operational noise would result in a likely decrease in recreational value in the area. Long-term adverse impacts on astronomy would affect research at Whipple Observatory and Jarnac Observatory. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and Organic Administration Act of 1897. JF - EPA number: 110350, Volume 1--392 pages, Volume 2--486 pages, Appendices--167 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Coronado National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance KW - Organic Administration Act of 1897, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/911145065?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tucson, Arizona; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 60 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912111125; 15104-7_0060 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 60 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912111125?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912111124; 15104-7_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912111124?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912111123; 15104-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912111123?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 18 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 912110928; 15100-3_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing local streets affected by the freeway reconstruction; and enhancing the appearance of the reconstructed freeway. I-94 is a major east-west freeway link and I-894 is a bypass around Milwaukee that provides an important connection for several Milwaukee County communities. US 45 is a north-south highway link connecting the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Oshkosh, Fond du Lac, West Bend, Milwaukee, Chicagos OHare International Airport, and points south. The Zoo Interchange carries more than 300,000 vehicles on an average weekday and crash rates in the study area are up to five times higher than on other similar freeways in the state. This final EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative, the Modernization with No Added Capacity Alternative (six lanes), the Modernization with Added Capacity Alternative (eight lanes), and the Reduced Impacts Alternative. An adjacent arterials component is also considered in order to provide needed improvements for freeway traffic diverted to State Highway 100, Watertown Plank Road, Bluemound Road, and 84th Street. The Reduced Impacts Alternative with the adjacent arterials component is the preferred alternative. Eight lanes would be provided in the north-south direction. Four east-west lanes would be provided through the core while additional capacity in the form of auxiliary lanes would be provided east and west of the core to accommodate future traffic volumes. The Zoo Interchange would include full eight-foot to 12-foot shoulders on all ramps and freeways, two to three lanes on all through routes, and three to four lanes on all four approach legs. Smoother curves on all interchange ramps would provide a minimum design speed of 45 miles per hour (mph). I-94 and US 45 would have a 60 mph design speed. The interchange would have four levels, making it about 20 feet higher than the existing core. Expenditures for the Reduced Impacts Alternative estimated in year-of-construction dollars are $1.7 billion. The adjacent arterials component would cost $65 to $73 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system, replace deteriorating pavement and bridges, and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 76 acres of new right-of-way and would impact 1.6 acres of wetlands and 8.8 acres of parkland. Eight residences and five businesses would be displaced. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. Noise impacts would occur at 426 receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110343, Final EIS--379 pages, Appendices and Exhibits--497 pages, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912110928?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 16 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 912110922; 15100-3_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing local streets affected by the freeway reconstruction; and enhancing the appearance of the reconstructed freeway. I-94 is a major east-west freeway link and I-894 is a bypass around Milwaukee that provides an important connection for several Milwaukee County communities. US 45 is a north-south highway link connecting the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Oshkosh, Fond du Lac, West Bend, Milwaukee, Chicagos OHare International Airport, and points south. The Zoo Interchange carries more than 300,000 vehicles on an average weekday and crash rates in the study area are up to five times higher than on other similar freeways in the state. This final EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative, the Modernization with No Added Capacity Alternative (six lanes), the Modernization with Added Capacity Alternative (eight lanes), and the Reduced Impacts Alternative. An adjacent arterials component is also considered in order to provide needed improvements for freeway traffic diverted to State Highway 100, Watertown Plank Road, Bluemound Road, and 84th Street. The Reduced Impacts Alternative with the adjacent arterials component is the preferred alternative. Eight lanes would be provided in the north-south direction. Four east-west lanes would be provided through the core while additional capacity in the form of auxiliary lanes would be provided east and west of the core to accommodate future traffic volumes. The Zoo Interchange would include full eight-foot to 12-foot shoulders on all ramps and freeways, two to three lanes on all through routes, and three to four lanes on all four approach legs. Smoother curves on all interchange ramps would provide a minimum design speed of 45 miles per hour (mph). I-94 and US 45 would have a 60 mph design speed. The interchange would have four levels, making it about 20 feet higher than the existing core. Expenditures for the Reduced Impacts Alternative estimated in year-of-construction dollars are $1.7 billion. The adjacent arterials component would cost $65 to $73 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system, replace deteriorating pavement and bridges, and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 76 acres of new right-of-way and would impact 1.6 acres of wetlands and 8.8 acres of parkland. Eight residences and five businesses would be displaced. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. Noise impacts would occur at 426 receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110343, Final EIS--379 pages, Appendices and Exhibits--497 pages, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912110922?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 15 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 912110919; 15100-3_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing local streets affected by the freeway reconstruction; and enhancing the appearance of the reconstructed freeway. I-94 is a major east-west freeway link and I-894 is a bypass around Milwaukee that provides an important connection for several Milwaukee County communities. US 45 is a north-south highway link connecting the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Oshkosh, Fond du Lac, West Bend, Milwaukee, Chicagos OHare International Airport, and points south. The Zoo Interchange carries more than 300,000 vehicles on an average weekday and crash rates in the study area are up to five times higher than on other similar freeways in the state. This final EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative, the Modernization with No Added Capacity Alternative (six lanes), the Modernization with Added Capacity Alternative (eight lanes), and the Reduced Impacts Alternative. An adjacent arterials component is also considered in order to provide needed improvements for freeway traffic diverted to State Highway 100, Watertown Plank Road, Bluemound Road, and 84th Street. The Reduced Impacts Alternative with the adjacent arterials component is the preferred alternative. Eight lanes would be provided in the north-south direction. Four east-west lanes would be provided through the core while additional capacity in the form of auxiliary lanes would be provided east and west of the core to accommodate future traffic volumes. The Zoo Interchange would include full eight-foot to 12-foot shoulders on all ramps and freeways, two to three lanes on all through routes, and three to four lanes on all four approach legs. Smoother curves on all interchange ramps would provide a minimum design speed of 45 miles per hour (mph). I-94 and US 45 would have a 60 mph design speed. The interchange would have four levels, making it about 20 feet higher than the existing core. Expenditures for the Reduced Impacts Alternative estimated in year-of-construction dollars are $1.7 billion. The adjacent arterials component would cost $65 to $73 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system, replace deteriorating pavement and bridges, and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 76 acres of new right-of-way and would impact 1.6 acres of wetlands and 8.8 acres of parkland. Eight residences and five businesses would be displaced. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. Noise impacts would occur at 426 receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110343, Final EIS--379 pages, Appendices and Exhibits--497 pages, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912110919?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 13 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 912110917; 15100-3_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing local streets affected by the freeway reconstruction; and enhancing the appearance of the reconstructed freeway. I-94 is a major east-west freeway link and I-894 is a bypass around Milwaukee that provides an important connection for several Milwaukee County communities. US 45 is a north-south highway link connecting the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Oshkosh, Fond du Lac, West Bend, Milwaukee, Chicagos OHare International Airport, and points south. The Zoo Interchange carries more than 300,000 vehicles on an average weekday and crash rates in the study area are up to five times higher than on other similar freeways in the state. This final EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative, the Modernization with No Added Capacity Alternative (six lanes), the Modernization with Added Capacity Alternative (eight lanes), and the Reduced Impacts Alternative. An adjacent arterials component is also considered in order to provide needed improvements for freeway traffic diverted to State Highway 100, Watertown Plank Road, Bluemound Road, and 84th Street. The Reduced Impacts Alternative with the adjacent arterials component is the preferred alternative. Eight lanes would be provided in the north-south direction. Four east-west lanes would be provided through the core while additional capacity in the form of auxiliary lanes would be provided east and west of the core to accommodate future traffic volumes. The Zoo Interchange would include full eight-foot to 12-foot shoulders on all ramps and freeways, two to three lanes on all through routes, and three to four lanes on all four approach legs. Smoother curves on all interchange ramps would provide a minimum design speed of 45 miles per hour (mph). I-94 and US 45 would have a 60 mph design speed. The interchange would have four levels, making it about 20 feet higher than the existing core. Expenditures for the Reduced Impacts Alternative estimated in year-of-construction dollars are $1.7 billion. The adjacent arterials component would cost $65 to $73 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system, replace deteriorating pavement and bridges, and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 76 acres of new right-of-way and would impact 1.6 acres of wetlands and 8.8 acres of parkland. Eight residences and five businesses would be displaced. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. Noise impacts would occur at 426 receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110343, Final EIS--379 pages, Appendices and Exhibits--497 pages, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912110917?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 63 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912110835; 15104-7_0063 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 63 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912110835?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 62 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912110830; 15104-7_0062 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 62 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912110830?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 61 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912110823; 15104-7_0061 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 61 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912110823?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912110819; 15104-7_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912110819?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 59 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912109876; 15104-7_0059 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 59 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912109876?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 58 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912109863; 15104-7_0058 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 58 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912109863?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 57 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912109847; 15104-7_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 57 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912109847?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 22 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 912109824; 15100-3_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing local streets affected by the freeway reconstruction; and enhancing the appearance of the reconstructed freeway. I-94 is a major east-west freeway link and I-894 is a bypass around Milwaukee that provides an important connection for several Milwaukee County communities. US 45 is a north-south highway link connecting the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Oshkosh, Fond du Lac, West Bend, Milwaukee, Chicagos OHare International Airport, and points south. The Zoo Interchange carries more than 300,000 vehicles on an average weekday and crash rates in the study area are up to five times higher than on other similar freeways in the state. This final EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative, the Modernization with No Added Capacity Alternative (six lanes), the Modernization with Added Capacity Alternative (eight lanes), and the Reduced Impacts Alternative. An adjacent arterials component is also considered in order to provide needed improvements for freeway traffic diverted to State Highway 100, Watertown Plank Road, Bluemound Road, and 84th Street. The Reduced Impacts Alternative with the adjacent arterials component is the preferred alternative. Eight lanes would be provided in the north-south direction. Four east-west lanes would be provided through the core while additional capacity in the form of auxiliary lanes would be provided east and west of the core to accommodate future traffic volumes. The Zoo Interchange would include full eight-foot to 12-foot shoulders on all ramps and freeways, two to three lanes on all through routes, and three to four lanes on all four approach legs. Smoother curves on all interchange ramps would provide a minimum design speed of 45 miles per hour (mph). I-94 and US 45 would have a 60 mph design speed. The interchange would have four levels, making it about 20 feet higher than the existing core. Expenditures for the Reduced Impacts Alternative estimated in year-of-construction dollars are $1.7 billion. The adjacent arterials component would cost $65 to $73 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system, replace deteriorating pavement and bridges, and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 76 acres of new right-of-way and would impact 1.6 acres of wetlands and 8.8 acres of parkland. Eight residences and five businesses would be displaced. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. Noise impacts would occur at 426 receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110343, Final EIS--379 pages, Appendices and Exhibits--497 pages, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912109824?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 21 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 912109813; 15100-3_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing local streets affected by the freeway reconstruction; and enhancing the appearance of the reconstructed freeway. I-94 is a major east-west freeway link and I-894 is a bypass around Milwaukee that provides an important connection for several Milwaukee County communities. US 45 is a north-south highway link connecting the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Oshkosh, Fond du Lac, West Bend, Milwaukee, Chicagos OHare International Airport, and points south. The Zoo Interchange carries more than 300,000 vehicles on an average weekday and crash rates in the study area are up to five times higher than on other similar freeways in the state. This final EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative, the Modernization with No Added Capacity Alternative (six lanes), the Modernization with Added Capacity Alternative (eight lanes), and the Reduced Impacts Alternative. An adjacent arterials component is also considered in order to provide needed improvements for freeway traffic diverted to State Highway 100, Watertown Plank Road, Bluemound Road, and 84th Street. The Reduced Impacts Alternative with the adjacent arterials component is the preferred alternative. Eight lanes would be provided in the north-south direction. Four east-west lanes would be provided through the core while additional capacity in the form of auxiliary lanes would be provided east and west of the core to accommodate future traffic volumes. The Zoo Interchange would include full eight-foot to 12-foot shoulders on all ramps and freeways, two to three lanes on all through routes, and three to four lanes on all four approach legs. Smoother curves on all interchange ramps would provide a minimum design speed of 45 miles per hour (mph). I-94 and US 45 would have a 60 mph design speed. The interchange would have four levels, making it about 20 feet higher than the existing core. Expenditures for the Reduced Impacts Alternative estimated in year-of-construction dollars are $1.7 billion. The adjacent arterials component would cost $65 to $73 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system, replace deteriorating pavement and bridges, and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 76 acres of new right-of-way and would impact 1.6 acres of wetlands and 8.8 acres of parkland. Eight residences and five businesses would be displaced. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. Noise impacts would occur at 426 receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110343, Final EIS--379 pages, Appendices and Exhibits--497 pages, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912109813?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 20 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 912109802; 15100-3_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing local streets affected by the freeway reconstruction; and enhancing the appearance of the reconstructed freeway. I-94 is a major east-west freeway link and I-894 is a bypass around Milwaukee that provides an important connection for several Milwaukee County communities. US 45 is a north-south highway link connecting the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Oshkosh, Fond du Lac, West Bend, Milwaukee, Chicagos OHare International Airport, and points south. The Zoo Interchange carries more than 300,000 vehicles on an average weekday and crash rates in the study area are up to five times higher than on other similar freeways in the state. This final EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative, the Modernization with No Added Capacity Alternative (six lanes), the Modernization with Added Capacity Alternative (eight lanes), and the Reduced Impacts Alternative. An adjacent arterials component is also considered in order to provide needed improvements for freeway traffic diverted to State Highway 100, Watertown Plank Road, Bluemound Road, and 84th Street. The Reduced Impacts Alternative with the adjacent arterials component is the preferred alternative. Eight lanes would be provided in the north-south direction. Four east-west lanes would be provided through the core while additional capacity in the form of auxiliary lanes would be provided east and west of the core to accommodate future traffic volumes. The Zoo Interchange would include full eight-foot to 12-foot shoulders on all ramps and freeways, two to three lanes on all through routes, and three to four lanes on all four approach legs. Smoother curves on all interchange ramps would provide a minimum design speed of 45 miles per hour (mph). I-94 and US 45 would have a 60 mph design speed. The interchange would have four levels, making it about 20 feet higher than the existing core. Expenditures for the Reduced Impacts Alternative estimated in year-of-construction dollars are $1.7 billion. The adjacent arterials component would cost $65 to $73 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system, replace deteriorating pavement and bridges, and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 76 acres of new right-of-way and would impact 1.6 acres of wetlands and 8.8 acres of parkland. Eight residences and five businesses would be displaced. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. Noise impacts would occur at 426 receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110343, Final EIS--379 pages, Appendices and Exhibits--497 pages, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912109802?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 19 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 912109793; 15100-3_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing local streets affected by the freeway reconstruction; and enhancing the appearance of the reconstructed freeway. I-94 is a major east-west freeway link and I-894 is a bypass around Milwaukee that provides an important connection for several Milwaukee County communities. US 45 is a north-south highway link connecting the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Oshkosh, Fond du Lac, West Bend, Milwaukee, Chicagos OHare International Airport, and points south. The Zoo Interchange carries more than 300,000 vehicles on an average weekday and crash rates in the study area are up to five times higher than on other similar freeways in the state. This final EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative, the Modernization with No Added Capacity Alternative (six lanes), the Modernization with Added Capacity Alternative (eight lanes), and the Reduced Impacts Alternative. An adjacent arterials component is also considered in order to provide needed improvements for freeway traffic diverted to State Highway 100, Watertown Plank Road, Bluemound Road, and 84th Street. The Reduced Impacts Alternative with the adjacent arterials component is the preferred alternative. Eight lanes would be provided in the north-south direction. Four east-west lanes would be provided through the core while additional capacity in the form of auxiliary lanes would be provided east and west of the core to accommodate future traffic volumes. The Zoo Interchange would include full eight-foot to 12-foot shoulders on all ramps and freeways, two to three lanes on all through routes, and three to four lanes on all four approach legs. Smoother curves on all interchange ramps would provide a minimum design speed of 45 miles per hour (mph). I-94 and US 45 would have a 60 mph design speed. The interchange would have four levels, making it about 20 feet higher than the existing core. Expenditures for the Reduced Impacts Alternative estimated in year-of-construction dollars are $1.7 billion. The adjacent arterials component would cost $65 to $73 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system, replace deteriorating pavement and bridges, and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 76 acres of new right-of-way and would impact 1.6 acres of wetlands and 8.8 acres of parkland. Eight residences and five businesses would be displaced. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. Noise impacts would occur at 426 receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110343, Final EIS--379 pages, Appendices and Exhibits--497 pages, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912109793?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 11 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 912109784; 15100-3_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing local streets affected by the freeway reconstruction; and enhancing the appearance of the reconstructed freeway. I-94 is a major east-west freeway link and I-894 is a bypass around Milwaukee that provides an important connection for several Milwaukee County communities. US 45 is a north-south highway link connecting the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Oshkosh, Fond du Lac, West Bend, Milwaukee, Chicagos OHare International Airport, and points south. The Zoo Interchange carries more than 300,000 vehicles on an average weekday and crash rates in the study area are up to five times higher than on other similar freeways in the state. This final EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative, the Modernization with No Added Capacity Alternative (six lanes), the Modernization with Added Capacity Alternative (eight lanes), and the Reduced Impacts Alternative. An adjacent arterials component is also considered in order to provide needed improvements for freeway traffic diverted to State Highway 100, Watertown Plank Road, Bluemound Road, and 84th Street. The Reduced Impacts Alternative with the adjacent arterials component is the preferred alternative. Eight lanes would be provided in the north-south direction. Four east-west lanes would be provided through the core while additional capacity in the form of auxiliary lanes would be provided east and west of the core to accommodate future traffic volumes. The Zoo Interchange would include full eight-foot to 12-foot shoulders on all ramps and freeways, two to three lanes on all through routes, and three to four lanes on all four approach legs. Smoother curves on all interchange ramps would provide a minimum design speed of 45 miles per hour (mph). I-94 and US 45 would have a 60 mph design speed. The interchange would have four levels, making it about 20 feet higher than the existing core. Expenditures for the Reduced Impacts Alternative estimated in year-of-construction dollars are $1.7 billion. The adjacent arterials component would cost $65 to $73 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system, replace deteriorating pavement and bridges, and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 76 acres of new right-of-way and would impact 1.6 acres of wetlands and 8.8 acres of parkland. Eight residences and five businesses would be displaced. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. Noise impacts would occur at 426 receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110343, Final EIS--379 pages, Appendices and Exhibits--497 pages, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912109784?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 10 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 912109771; 15100-3_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing local streets affected by the freeway reconstruction; and enhancing the appearance of the reconstructed freeway. I-94 is a major east-west freeway link and I-894 is a bypass around Milwaukee that provides an important connection for several Milwaukee County communities. US 45 is a north-south highway link connecting the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Oshkosh, Fond du Lac, West Bend, Milwaukee, Chicagos OHare International Airport, and points south. The Zoo Interchange carries more than 300,000 vehicles on an average weekday and crash rates in the study area are up to five times higher than on other similar freeways in the state. This final EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative, the Modernization with No Added Capacity Alternative (six lanes), the Modernization with Added Capacity Alternative (eight lanes), and the Reduced Impacts Alternative. An adjacent arterials component is also considered in order to provide needed improvements for freeway traffic diverted to State Highway 100, Watertown Plank Road, Bluemound Road, and 84th Street. The Reduced Impacts Alternative with the adjacent arterials component is the preferred alternative. Eight lanes would be provided in the north-south direction. Four east-west lanes would be provided through the core while additional capacity in the form of auxiliary lanes would be provided east and west of the core to accommodate future traffic volumes. The Zoo Interchange would include full eight-foot to 12-foot shoulders on all ramps and freeways, two to three lanes on all through routes, and three to four lanes on all four approach legs. Smoother curves on all interchange ramps would provide a minimum design speed of 45 miles per hour (mph). I-94 and US 45 would have a 60 mph design speed. The interchange would have four levels, making it about 20 feet higher than the existing core. Expenditures for the Reduced Impacts Alternative estimated in year-of-construction dollars are $1.7 billion. The adjacent arterials component would cost $65 to $73 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system, replace deteriorating pavement and bridges, and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 76 acres of new right-of-way and would impact 1.6 acres of wetlands and 8.8 acres of parkland. Eight residences and five businesses would be displaced. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. Noise impacts would occur at 426 receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110343, Final EIS--379 pages, Appendices and Exhibits--497 pages, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912109771?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 9 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 912109765; 15100-3_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing local streets affected by the freeway reconstruction; and enhancing the appearance of the reconstructed freeway. I-94 is a major east-west freeway link and I-894 is a bypass around Milwaukee that provides an important connection for several Milwaukee County communities. US 45 is a north-south highway link connecting the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Oshkosh, Fond du Lac, West Bend, Milwaukee, Chicagos OHare International Airport, and points south. The Zoo Interchange carries more than 300,000 vehicles on an average weekday and crash rates in the study area are up to five times higher than on other similar freeways in the state. This final EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative, the Modernization with No Added Capacity Alternative (six lanes), the Modernization with Added Capacity Alternative (eight lanes), and the Reduced Impacts Alternative. An adjacent arterials component is also considered in order to provide needed improvements for freeway traffic diverted to State Highway 100, Watertown Plank Road, Bluemound Road, and 84th Street. The Reduced Impacts Alternative with the adjacent arterials component is the preferred alternative. Eight lanes would be provided in the north-south direction. Four east-west lanes would be provided through the core while additional capacity in the form of auxiliary lanes would be provided east and west of the core to accommodate future traffic volumes. The Zoo Interchange would include full eight-foot to 12-foot shoulders on all ramps and freeways, two to three lanes on all through routes, and three to four lanes on all four approach legs. Smoother curves on all interchange ramps would provide a minimum design speed of 45 miles per hour (mph). I-94 and US 45 would have a 60 mph design speed. The interchange would have four levels, making it about 20 feet higher than the existing core. Expenditures for the Reduced Impacts Alternative estimated in year-of-construction dollars are $1.7 billion. The adjacent arterials component would cost $65 to $73 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system, replace deteriorating pavement and bridges, and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 76 acres of new right-of-way and would impact 1.6 acres of wetlands and 8.8 acres of parkland. Eight residences and five businesses would be displaced. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. Noise impacts would occur at 426 receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110343, Final EIS--379 pages, Appendices and Exhibits--497 pages, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912109765?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 8 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 912109756; 15100-3_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing local streets affected by the freeway reconstruction; and enhancing the appearance of the reconstructed freeway. I-94 is a major east-west freeway link and I-894 is a bypass around Milwaukee that provides an important connection for several Milwaukee County communities. US 45 is a north-south highway link connecting the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Oshkosh, Fond du Lac, West Bend, Milwaukee, Chicagos OHare International Airport, and points south. The Zoo Interchange carries more than 300,000 vehicles on an average weekday and crash rates in the study area are up to five times higher than on other similar freeways in the state. This final EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative, the Modernization with No Added Capacity Alternative (six lanes), the Modernization with Added Capacity Alternative (eight lanes), and the Reduced Impacts Alternative. An adjacent arterials component is also considered in order to provide needed improvements for freeway traffic diverted to State Highway 100, Watertown Plank Road, Bluemound Road, and 84th Street. The Reduced Impacts Alternative with the adjacent arterials component is the preferred alternative. Eight lanes would be provided in the north-south direction. Four east-west lanes would be provided through the core while additional capacity in the form of auxiliary lanes would be provided east and west of the core to accommodate future traffic volumes. The Zoo Interchange would include full eight-foot to 12-foot shoulders on all ramps and freeways, two to three lanes on all through routes, and three to four lanes on all four approach legs. Smoother curves on all interchange ramps would provide a minimum design speed of 45 miles per hour (mph). I-94 and US 45 would have a 60 mph design speed. The interchange would have four levels, making it about 20 feet higher than the existing core. Expenditures for the Reduced Impacts Alternative estimated in year-of-construction dollars are $1.7 billion. The adjacent arterials component would cost $65 to $73 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system, replace deteriorating pavement and bridges, and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 76 acres of new right-of-way and would impact 1.6 acres of wetlands and 8.8 acres of parkland. Eight residences and five businesses would be displaced. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. Noise impacts would occur at 426 receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110343, Final EIS--379 pages, Appendices and Exhibits--497 pages, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912109756?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 7 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 912109745; 15100-3_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing local streets affected by the freeway reconstruction; and enhancing the appearance of the reconstructed freeway. I-94 is a major east-west freeway link and I-894 is a bypass around Milwaukee that provides an important connection for several Milwaukee County communities. US 45 is a north-south highway link connecting the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Oshkosh, Fond du Lac, West Bend, Milwaukee, Chicagos OHare International Airport, and points south. The Zoo Interchange carries more than 300,000 vehicles on an average weekday and crash rates in the study area are up to five times higher than on other similar freeways in the state. This final EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative, the Modernization with No Added Capacity Alternative (six lanes), the Modernization with Added Capacity Alternative (eight lanes), and the Reduced Impacts Alternative. An adjacent arterials component is also considered in order to provide needed improvements for freeway traffic diverted to State Highway 100, Watertown Plank Road, Bluemound Road, and 84th Street. The Reduced Impacts Alternative with the adjacent arterials component is the preferred alternative. Eight lanes would be provided in the north-south direction. Four east-west lanes would be provided through the core while additional capacity in the form of auxiliary lanes would be provided east and west of the core to accommodate future traffic volumes. The Zoo Interchange would include full eight-foot to 12-foot shoulders on all ramps and freeways, two to three lanes on all through routes, and three to four lanes on all four approach legs. Smoother curves on all interchange ramps would provide a minimum design speed of 45 miles per hour (mph). I-94 and US 45 would have a 60 mph design speed. The interchange would have four levels, making it about 20 feet higher than the existing core. Expenditures for the Reduced Impacts Alternative estimated in year-of-construction dollars are $1.7 billion. The adjacent arterials component would cost $65 to $73 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system, replace deteriorating pavement and bridges, and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 76 acres of new right-of-way and would impact 1.6 acres of wetlands and 8.8 acres of parkland. Eight residences and five businesses would be displaced. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. Noise impacts would occur at 426 receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110343, Final EIS--379 pages, Appendices and Exhibits--497 pages, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912109745?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912109722; 15104-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912109722?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912109703; 15104-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912109703?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 5 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 912109489; 15100-3_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing local streets affected by the freeway reconstruction; and enhancing the appearance of the reconstructed freeway. I-94 is a major east-west freeway link and I-894 is a bypass around Milwaukee that provides an important connection for several Milwaukee County communities. US 45 is a north-south highway link connecting the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Oshkosh, Fond du Lac, West Bend, Milwaukee, Chicagos OHare International Airport, and points south. The Zoo Interchange carries more than 300,000 vehicles on an average weekday and crash rates in the study area are up to five times higher than on other similar freeways in the state. This final EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative, the Modernization with No Added Capacity Alternative (six lanes), the Modernization with Added Capacity Alternative (eight lanes), and the Reduced Impacts Alternative. An adjacent arterials component is also considered in order to provide needed improvements for freeway traffic diverted to State Highway 100, Watertown Plank Road, Bluemound Road, and 84th Street. The Reduced Impacts Alternative with the adjacent arterials component is the preferred alternative. Eight lanes would be provided in the north-south direction. Four east-west lanes would be provided through the core while additional capacity in the form of auxiliary lanes would be provided east and west of the core to accommodate future traffic volumes. The Zoo Interchange would include full eight-foot to 12-foot shoulders on all ramps and freeways, two to three lanes on all through routes, and three to four lanes on all four approach legs. Smoother curves on all interchange ramps would provide a minimum design speed of 45 miles per hour (mph). I-94 and US 45 would have a 60 mph design speed. The interchange would have four levels, making it about 20 feet higher than the existing core. Expenditures for the Reduced Impacts Alternative estimated in year-of-construction dollars are $1.7 billion. The adjacent arterials component would cost $65 to $73 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system, replace deteriorating pavement and bridges, and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 76 acres of new right-of-way and would impact 1.6 acres of wetlands and 8.8 acres of parkland. Eight residences and five businesses would be displaced. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. Noise impacts would occur at 426 receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110343, Final EIS--379 pages, Appendices and Exhibits--497 pages, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912109489?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 4 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 912109471; 15100-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing local streets affected by the freeway reconstruction; and enhancing the appearance of the reconstructed freeway. I-94 is a major east-west freeway link and I-894 is a bypass around Milwaukee that provides an important connection for several Milwaukee County communities. US 45 is a north-south highway link connecting the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Oshkosh, Fond du Lac, West Bend, Milwaukee, Chicagos OHare International Airport, and points south. The Zoo Interchange carries more than 300,000 vehicles on an average weekday and crash rates in the study area are up to five times higher than on other similar freeways in the state. This final EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative, the Modernization with No Added Capacity Alternative (six lanes), the Modernization with Added Capacity Alternative (eight lanes), and the Reduced Impacts Alternative. An adjacent arterials component is also considered in order to provide needed improvements for freeway traffic diverted to State Highway 100, Watertown Plank Road, Bluemound Road, and 84th Street. The Reduced Impacts Alternative with the adjacent arterials component is the preferred alternative. Eight lanes would be provided in the north-south direction. Four east-west lanes would be provided through the core while additional capacity in the form of auxiliary lanes would be provided east and west of the core to accommodate future traffic volumes. The Zoo Interchange would include full eight-foot to 12-foot shoulders on all ramps and freeways, two to three lanes on all through routes, and three to four lanes on all four approach legs. Smoother curves on all interchange ramps would provide a minimum design speed of 45 miles per hour (mph). I-94 and US 45 would have a 60 mph design speed. The interchange would have four levels, making it about 20 feet higher than the existing core. Expenditures for the Reduced Impacts Alternative estimated in year-of-construction dollars are $1.7 billion. The adjacent arterials component would cost $65 to $73 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system, replace deteriorating pavement and bridges, and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 76 acres of new right-of-way and would impact 1.6 acres of wetlands and 8.8 acres of parkland. Eight residences and five businesses would be displaced. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. Noise impacts would occur at 426 receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110343, Final EIS--379 pages, Appendices and Exhibits--497 pages, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912109471?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 3 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 912109462; 15100-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing local streets affected by the freeway reconstruction; and enhancing the appearance of the reconstructed freeway. I-94 is a major east-west freeway link and I-894 is a bypass around Milwaukee that provides an important connection for several Milwaukee County communities. US 45 is a north-south highway link connecting the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Oshkosh, Fond du Lac, West Bend, Milwaukee, Chicagos OHare International Airport, and points south. The Zoo Interchange carries more than 300,000 vehicles on an average weekday and crash rates in the study area are up to five times higher than on other similar freeways in the state. This final EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative, the Modernization with No Added Capacity Alternative (six lanes), the Modernization with Added Capacity Alternative (eight lanes), and the Reduced Impacts Alternative. An adjacent arterials component is also considered in order to provide needed improvements for freeway traffic diverted to State Highway 100, Watertown Plank Road, Bluemound Road, and 84th Street. The Reduced Impacts Alternative with the adjacent arterials component is the preferred alternative. Eight lanes would be provided in the north-south direction. Four east-west lanes would be provided through the core while additional capacity in the form of auxiliary lanes would be provided east and west of the core to accommodate future traffic volumes. The Zoo Interchange would include full eight-foot to 12-foot shoulders on all ramps and freeways, two to three lanes on all through routes, and three to four lanes on all four approach legs. Smoother curves on all interchange ramps would provide a minimum design speed of 45 miles per hour (mph). I-94 and US 45 would have a 60 mph design speed. The interchange would have four levels, making it about 20 feet higher than the existing core. Expenditures for the Reduced Impacts Alternative estimated in year-of-construction dollars are $1.7 billion. The adjacent arterials component would cost $65 to $73 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system, replace deteriorating pavement and bridges, and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 76 acres of new right-of-way and would impact 1.6 acres of wetlands and 8.8 acres of parkland. Eight residences and five businesses would be displaced. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. Noise impacts would occur at 426 receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110343, Final EIS--379 pages, Appendices and Exhibits--497 pages, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912109462?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 2 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 912109439; 15100-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing local streets affected by the freeway reconstruction; and enhancing the appearance of the reconstructed freeway. I-94 is a major east-west freeway link and I-894 is a bypass around Milwaukee that provides an important connection for several Milwaukee County communities. US 45 is a north-south highway link connecting the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Oshkosh, Fond du Lac, West Bend, Milwaukee, Chicagos OHare International Airport, and points south. The Zoo Interchange carries more than 300,000 vehicles on an average weekday and crash rates in the study area are up to five times higher than on other similar freeways in the state. This final EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative, the Modernization with No Added Capacity Alternative (six lanes), the Modernization with Added Capacity Alternative (eight lanes), and the Reduced Impacts Alternative. An adjacent arterials component is also considered in order to provide needed improvements for freeway traffic diverted to State Highway 100, Watertown Plank Road, Bluemound Road, and 84th Street. The Reduced Impacts Alternative with the adjacent arterials component is the preferred alternative. Eight lanes would be provided in the north-south direction. Four east-west lanes would be provided through the core while additional capacity in the form of auxiliary lanes would be provided east and west of the core to accommodate future traffic volumes. The Zoo Interchange would include full eight-foot to 12-foot shoulders on all ramps and freeways, two to three lanes on all through routes, and three to four lanes on all four approach legs. Smoother curves on all interchange ramps would provide a minimum design speed of 45 miles per hour (mph). I-94 and US 45 would have a 60 mph design speed. The interchange would have four levels, making it about 20 feet higher than the existing core. Expenditures for the Reduced Impacts Alternative estimated in year-of-construction dollars are $1.7 billion. The adjacent arterials component would cost $65 to $73 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system, replace deteriorating pavement and bridges, and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 76 acres of new right-of-way and would impact 1.6 acres of wetlands and 8.8 acres of parkland. Eight residences and five businesses would be displaced. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. Noise impacts would occur at 426 receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110343, Final EIS--379 pages, Appendices and Exhibits--497 pages, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912109439?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 1 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 912109428; 15100-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing local streets affected by the freeway reconstruction; and enhancing the appearance of the reconstructed freeway. I-94 is a major east-west freeway link and I-894 is a bypass around Milwaukee that provides an important connection for several Milwaukee County communities. US 45 is a north-south highway link connecting the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Oshkosh, Fond du Lac, West Bend, Milwaukee, Chicagos OHare International Airport, and points south. The Zoo Interchange carries more than 300,000 vehicles on an average weekday and crash rates in the study area are up to five times higher than on other similar freeways in the state. This final EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative, the Modernization with No Added Capacity Alternative (six lanes), the Modernization with Added Capacity Alternative (eight lanes), and the Reduced Impacts Alternative. An adjacent arterials component is also considered in order to provide needed improvements for freeway traffic diverted to State Highway 100, Watertown Plank Road, Bluemound Road, and 84th Street. The Reduced Impacts Alternative with the adjacent arterials component is the preferred alternative. Eight lanes would be provided in the north-south direction. Four east-west lanes would be provided through the core while additional capacity in the form of auxiliary lanes would be provided east and west of the core to accommodate future traffic volumes. The Zoo Interchange would include full eight-foot to 12-foot shoulders on all ramps and freeways, two to three lanes on all through routes, and three to four lanes on all four approach legs. Smoother curves on all interchange ramps would provide a minimum design speed of 45 miles per hour (mph). I-94 and US 45 would have a 60 mph design speed. The interchange would have four levels, making it about 20 feet higher than the existing core. Expenditures for the Reduced Impacts Alternative estimated in year-of-construction dollars are $1.7 billion. The adjacent arterials component would cost $65 to $73 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system, replace deteriorating pavement and bridges, and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 76 acres of new right-of-way and would impact 1.6 acres of wetlands and 8.8 acres of parkland. Eight residences and five businesses would be displaced. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. Noise impacts would occur at 426 receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110343, Final EIS--379 pages, Appendices and Exhibits--497 pages, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912109428?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 64 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912108878; 15104-7_0064 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 64 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912108878?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 48 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912105834; 15104-7_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 48 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105834?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 47 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912105808; 15104-7_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 47 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105808?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 46 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912105795; 15104-7_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 46 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105795?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 45 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912105786; 15104-7_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 45 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105786?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 44 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912105773; 15104-7_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 44 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105773?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 43 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912105734; 15104-7_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 43 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105734?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 42 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912105720; 15104-7_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 42 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105720?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 41 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912105688; 15104-7_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 41 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105688?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 40 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912105626; 15104-7_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 40 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105626?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 39 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912105593; 15104-7_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 39 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105593?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 38 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912103091; 15104-7_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912103091?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 37 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912103059; 15104-7_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 37 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912103059?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 36 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912103041; 15104-7_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912103041?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 35 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912103011; 15104-7_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912103011?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 34 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102991; 15104-7_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102991?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 33 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102971; 15104-7_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102971?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 32 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102944; 15104-7_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102944?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 31 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102917; 15104-7_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102917?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 30 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102882; 15104-7_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102882?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 29 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102842; 15104-7_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102842?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 24 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102817; 15104-7_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102817?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 23 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102792; 15104-7_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102792?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 22 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102756; 15104-7_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102756?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102718; 15104-7_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102718?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 16 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102684; 15104-7_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102684?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 15 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102650; 15104-7_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102650?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102605; 15104-7_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102605?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 55 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102232; 15104-7_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 55 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102232?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 54 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102214; 15104-7_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 54 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102214?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 53 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102183; 15104-7_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 53 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102183?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 52 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102166; 15104-7_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 52 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102166?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 51 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102143; 15104-7_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 51 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102143?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 50 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102131; 15104-7_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 50 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102131?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 49 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102107; 15104-7_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 49 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102107?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 56 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912101485; 15104-7_0056 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 56 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912101485?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 29 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 912101049; 15100-3_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing local streets affected by the freeway reconstruction; and enhancing the appearance of the reconstructed freeway. I-94 is a major east-west freeway link and I-894 is a bypass around Milwaukee that provides an important connection for several Milwaukee County communities. US 45 is a north-south highway link connecting the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Oshkosh, Fond du Lac, West Bend, Milwaukee, Chicagos OHare International Airport, and points south. The Zoo Interchange carries more than 300,000 vehicles on an average weekday and crash rates in the study area are up to five times higher than on other similar freeways in the state. This final EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative, the Modernization with No Added Capacity Alternative (six lanes), the Modernization with Added Capacity Alternative (eight lanes), and the Reduced Impacts Alternative. An adjacent arterials component is also considered in order to provide needed improvements for freeway traffic diverted to State Highway 100, Watertown Plank Road, Bluemound Road, and 84th Street. The Reduced Impacts Alternative with the adjacent arterials component is the preferred alternative. Eight lanes would be provided in the north-south direction. Four east-west lanes would be provided through the core while additional capacity in the form of auxiliary lanes would be provided east and west of the core to accommodate future traffic volumes. The Zoo Interchange would include full eight-foot to 12-foot shoulders on all ramps and freeways, two to three lanes on all through routes, and three to four lanes on all four approach legs. Smoother curves on all interchange ramps would provide a minimum design speed of 45 miles per hour (mph). I-94 and US 45 would have a 60 mph design speed. The interchange would have four levels, making it about 20 feet higher than the existing core. Expenditures for the Reduced Impacts Alternative estimated in year-of-construction dollars are $1.7 billion. The adjacent arterials component would cost $65 to $73 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system, replace deteriorating pavement and bridges, and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 76 acres of new right-of-way and would impact 1.6 acres of wetlands and 8.8 acres of parkland. Eight residences and five businesses would be displaced. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. Noise impacts would occur at 426 receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110343, Final EIS--379 pages, Appendices and Exhibits--497 pages, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912101049?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 28 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 912101042; 15100-3_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing local streets affected by the freeway reconstruction; and enhancing the appearance of the reconstructed freeway. I-94 is a major east-west freeway link and I-894 is a bypass around Milwaukee that provides an important connection for several Milwaukee County communities. US 45 is a north-south highway link connecting the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Oshkosh, Fond du Lac, West Bend, Milwaukee, Chicagos OHare International Airport, and points south. The Zoo Interchange carries more than 300,000 vehicles on an average weekday and crash rates in the study area are up to five times higher than on other similar freeways in the state. This final EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative, the Modernization with No Added Capacity Alternative (six lanes), the Modernization with Added Capacity Alternative (eight lanes), and the Reduced Impacts Alternative. An adjacent arterials component is also considered in order to provide needed improvements for freeway traffic diverted to State Highway 100, Watertown Plank Road, Bluemound Road, and 84th Street. The Reduced Impacts Alternative with the adjacent arterials component is the preferred alternative. Eight lanes would be provided in the north-south direction. Four east-west lanes would be provided through the core while additional capacity in the form of auxiliary lanes would be provided east and west of the core to accommodate future traffic volumes. The Zoo Interchange would include full eight-foot to 12-foot shoulders on all ramps and freeways, two to three lanes on all through routes, and three to four lanes on all four approach legs. Smoother curves on all interchange ramps would provide a minimum design speed of 45 miles per hour (mph). I-94 and US 45 would have a 60 mph design speed. The interchange would have four levels, making it about 20 feet higher than the existing core. Expenditures for the Reduced Impacts Alternative estimated in year-of-construction dollars are $1.7 billion. The adjacent arterials component would cost $65 to $73 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system, replace deteriorating pavement and bridges, and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 76 acres of new right-of-way and would impact 1.6 acres of wetlands and 8.8 acres of parkland. Eight residences and five businesses would be displaced. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. Noise impacts would occur at 426 receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110343, Final EIS--379 pages, Appendices and Exhibits--497 pages, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912101042?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 27 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 912101034; 15100-3_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing local streets affected by the freeway reconstruction; and enhancing the appearance of the reconstructed freeway. I-94 is a major east-west freeway link and I-894 is a bypass around Milwaukee that provides an important connection for several Milwaukee County communities. US 45 is a north-south highway link connecting the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Oshkosh, Fond du Lac, West Bend, Milwaukee, Chicagos OHare International Airport, and points south. The Zoo Interchange carries more than 300,000 vehicles on an average weekday and crash rates in the study area are up to five times higher than on other similar freeways in the state. This final EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative, the Modernization with No Added Capacity Alternative (six lanes), the Modernization with Added Capacity Alternative (eight lanes), and the Reduced Impacts Alternative. An adjacent arterials component is also considered in order to provide needed improvements for freeway traffic diverted to State Highway 100, Watertown Plank Road, Bluemound Road, and 84th Street. The Reduced Impacts Alternative with the adjacent arterials component is the preferred alternative. Eight lanes would be provided in the north-south direction. Four east-west lanes would be provided through the core while additional capacity in the form of auxiliary lanes would be provided east and west of the core to accommodate future traffic volumes. The Zoo Interchange would include full eight-foot to 12-foot shoulders on all ramps and freeways, two to three lanes on all through routes, and three to four lanes on all four approach legs. Smoother curves on all interchange ramps would provide a minimum design speed of 45 miles per hour (mph). I-94 and US 45 would have a 60 mph design speed. The interchange would have four levels, making it about 20 feet higher than the existing core. Expenditures for the Reduced Impacts Alternative estimated in year-of-construction dollars are $1.7 billion. The adjacent arterials component would cost $65 to $73 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system, replace deteriorating pavement and bridges, and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 76 acres of new right-of-way and would impact 1.6 acres of wetlands and 8.8 acres of parkland. Eight residences and five businesses would be displaced. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. Noise impacts would occur at 426 receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110343, Final EIS--379 pages, Appendices and Exhibits--497 pages, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912101034?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 26 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 912101023; 15100-3_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing local streets affected by the freeway reconstruction; and enhancing the appearance of the reconstructed freeway. I-94 is a major east-west freeway link and I-894 is a bypass around Milwaukee that provides an important connection for several Milwaukee County communities. US 45 is a north-south highway link connecting the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Oshkosh, Fond du Lac, West Bend, Milwaukee, Chicagos OHare International Airport, and points south. The Zoo Interchange carries more than 300,000 vehicles on an average weekday and crash rates in the study area are up to five times higher than on other similar freeways in the state. This final EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative, the Modernization with No Added Capacity Alternative (six lanes), the Modernization with Added Capacity Alternative (eight lanes), and the Reduced Impacts Alternative. An adjacent arterials component is also considered in order to provide needed improvements for freeway traffic diverted to State Highway 100, Watertown Plank Road, Bluemound Road, and 84th Street. The Reduced Impacts Alternative with the adjacent arterials component is the preferred alternative. Eight lanes would be provided in the north-south direction. Four east-west lanes would be provided through the core while additional capacity in the form of auxiliary lanes would be provided east and west of the core to accommodate future traffic volumes. The Zoo Interchange would include full eight-foot to 12-foot shoulders on all ramps and freeways, two to three lanes on all through routes, and three to four lanes on all four approach legs. Smoother curves on all interchange ramps would provide a minimum design speed of 45 miles per hour (mph). I-94 and US 45 would have a 60 mph design speed. The interchange would have four levels, making it about 20 feet higher than the existing core. Expenditures for the Reduced Impacts Alternative estimated in year-of-construction dollars are $1.7 billion. The adjacent arterials component would cost $65 to $73 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system, replace deteriorating pavement and bridges, and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 76 acres of new right-of-way and would impact 1.6 acres of wetlands and 8.8 acres of parkland. Eight residences and five businesses would be displaced. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. Noise impacts would occur at 426 receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110343, Final EIS--379 pages, Appendices and Exhibits--497 pages, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912101023?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 25 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 912101016; 15100-3_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing local streets affected by the freeway reconstruction; and enhancing the appearance of the reconstructed freeway. I-94 is a major east-west freeway link and I-894 is a bypass around Milwaukee that provides an important connection for several Milwaukee County communities. US 45 is a north-south highway link connecting the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Oshkosh, Fond du Lac, West Bend, Milwaukee, Chicagos OHare International Airport, and points south. The Zoo Interchange carries more than 300,000 vehicles on an average weekday and crash rates in the study area are up to five times higher than on other similar freeways in the state. This final EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative, the Modernization with No Added Capacity Alternative (six lanes), the Modernization with Added Capacity Alternative (eight lanes), and the Reduced Impacts Alternative. An adjacent arterials component is also considered in order to provide needed improvements for freeway traffic diverted to State Highway 100, Watertown Plank Road, Bluemound Road, and 84th Street. The Reduced Impacts Alternative with the adjacent arterials component is the preferred alternative. Eight lanes would be provided in the north-south direction. Four east-west lanes would be provided through the core while additional capacity in the form of auxiliary lanes would be provided east and west of the core to accommodate future traffic volumes. The Zoo Interchange would include full eight-foot to 12-foot shoulders on all ramps and freeways, two to three lanes on all through routes, and three to four lanes on all four approach legs. Smoother curves on all interchange ramps would provide a minimum design speed of 45 miles per hour (mph). I-94 and US 45 would have a 60 mph design speed. The interchange would have four levels, making it about 20 feet higher than the existing core. Expenditures for the Reduced Impacts Alternative estimated in year-of-construction dollars are $1.7 billion. The adjacent arterials component would cost $65 to $73 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system, replace deteriorating pavement and bridges, and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 76 acres of new right-of-way and would impact 1.6 acres of wetlands and 8.8 acres of parkland. Eight residences and five businesses would be displaced. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. Noise impacts would occur at 426 receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110343, Final EIS--379 pages, Appendices and Exhibits--497 pages, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912101016?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912100982; 15104-7_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100982?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912100967; 15104-7_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100967?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 28 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912100959; 15104-7_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100959?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 27 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912100932; 15104-7_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100932?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 26 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912100914; 15104-7_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100914?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 25 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912100884; 15104-7_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100884?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 21 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912100861; 15104-7_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100861?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 20 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912100840; 15104-7_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100840?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 19 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912100814; 15104-7_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100814?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 18 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912100783; 15104-7_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100783?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912100624; 15104-7_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100624?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912100380; 15104-7_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100380?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912100345; 15104-7_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100345?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912100303; 15104-7_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100303?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 24 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 912100019; 15100-3_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing local streets affected by the freeway reconstruction; and enhancing the appearance of the reconstructed freeway. I-94 is a major east-west freeway link and I-894 is a bypass around Milwaukee that provides an important connection for several Milwaukee County communities. US 45 is a north-south highway link connecting the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Oshkosh, Fond du Lac, West Bend, Milwaukee, Chicagos OHare International Airport, and points south. The Zoo Interchange carries more than 300,000 vehicles on an average weekday and crash rates in the study area are up to five times higher than on other similar freeways in the state. This final EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative, the Modernization with No Added Capacity Alternative (six lanes), the Modernization with Added Capacity Alternative (eight lanes), and the Reduced Impacts Alternative. An adjacent arterials component is also considered in order to provide needed improvements for freeway traffic diverted to State Highway 100, Watertown Plank Road, Bluemound Road, and 84th Street. The Reduced Impacts Alternative with the adjacent arterials component is the preferred alternative. Eight lanes would be provided in the north-south direction. Four east-west lanes would be provided through the core while additional capacity in the form of auxiliary lanes would be provided east and west of the core to accommodate future traffic volumes. The Zoo Interchange would include full eight-foot to 12-foot shoulders on all ramps and freeways, two to three lanes on all through routes, and three to four lanes on all four approach legs. Smoother curves on all interchange ramps would provide a minimum design speed of 45 miles per hour (mph). I-94 and US 45 would have a 60 mph design speed. The interchange would have four levels, making it about 20 feet higher than the existing core. Expenditures for the Reduced Impacts Alternative estimated in year-of-construction dollars are $1.7 billion. The adjacent arterials component would cost $65 to $73 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system, replace deteriorating pavement and bridges, and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 76 acres of new right-of-way and would impact 1.6 acres of wetlands and 8.8 acres of parkland. Eight residences and five businesses would be displaced. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. Noise impacts would occur at 426 receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110343, Final EIS--379 pages, Appendices and Exhibits--497 pages, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100019?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 23 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 912099994; 15100-3_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing local streets affected by the freeway reconstruction; and enhancing the appearance of the reconstructed freeway. I-94 is a major east-west freeway link and I-894 is a bypass around Milwaukee that provides an important connection for several Milwaukee County communities. US 45 is a north-south highway link connecting the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Oshkosh, Fond du Lac, West Bend, Milwaukee, Chicagos OHare International Airport, and points south. The Zoo Interchange carries more than 300,000 vehicles on an average weekday and crash rates in the study area are up to five times higher than on other similar freeways in the state. This final EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative, the Modernization with No Added Capacity Alternative (six lanes), the Modernization with Added Capacity Alternative (eight lanes), and the Reduced Impacts Alternative. An adjacent arterials component is also considered in order to provide needed improvements for freeway traffic diverted to State Highway 100, Watertown Plank Road, Bluemound Road, and 84th Street. The Reduced Impacts Alternative with the adjacent arterials component is the preferred alternative. Eight lanes would be provided in the north-south direction. Four east-west lanes would be provided through the core while additional capacity in the form of auxiliary lanes would be provided east and west of the core to accommodate future traffic volumes. The Zoo Interchange would include full eight-foot to 12-foot shoulders on all ramps and freeways, two to three lanes on all through routes, and three to four lanes on all four approach legs. Smoother curves on all interchange ramps would provide a minimum design speed of 45 miles per hour (mph). I-94 and US 45 would have a 60 mph design speed. The interchange would have four levels, making it about 20 feet higher than the existing core. Expenditures for the Reduced Impacts Alternative estimated in year-of-construction dollars are $1.7 billion. The adjacent arterials component would cost $65 to $73 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system, replace deteriorating pavement and bridges, and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 76 acres of new right-of-way and would impact 1.6 acres of wetlands and 8.8 acres of parkland. Eight residences and five businesses would be displaced. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. Noise impacts would occur at 426 receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110343, Final EIS--379 pages, Appendices and Exhibits--497 pages, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912099994?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912099963; 15104-7_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912099963?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912099924; 15104-7_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912099924?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910686414; 15104 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910686414?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 910686405; 15100 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing local streets affected by the freeway reconstruction; and enhancing the appearance of the reconstructed freeway. I-94 is a major east-west freeway link and I-894 is a bypass around Milwaukee that provides an important connection for several Milwaukee County communities. US 45 is a north-south highway link connecting the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Oshkosh, Fond du Lac, West Bend, Milwaukee, Chicagos OHare International Airport, and points south. The Zoo Interchange carries more than 300,000 vehicles on an average weekday and crash rates in the study area are up to five times higher than on other similar freeways in the state. This final EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative, the Modernization with No Added Capacity Alternative (six lanes), the Modernization with Added Capacity Alternative (eight lanes), and the Reduced Impacts Alternative. An adjacent arterials component is also considered in order to provide needed improvements for freeway traffic diverted to State Highway 100, Watertown Plank Road, Bluemound Road, and 84th Street. The Reduced Impacts Alternative with the adjacent arterials component is the preferred alternative. Eight lanes would be provided in the north-south direction. Four east-west lanes would be provided through the core while additional capacity in the form of auxiliary lanes would be provided east and west of the core to accommodate future traffic volumes. The Zoo Interchange would include full eight-foot to 12-foot shoulders on all ramps and freeways, two to three lanes on all through routes, and three to four lanes on all four approach legs. Smoother curves on all interchange ramps would provide a minimum design speed of 45 miles per hour (mph). I-94 and US 45 would have a 60 mph design speed. The interchange would have four levels, making it about 20 feet higher than the existing core. Expenditures for the Reduced Impacts Alternative estimated in year-of-construction dollars are $1.7 billion. The adjacent arterials component would cost $65 to $73 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system, replace deteriorating pavement and bridges, and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 76 acres of new right-of-way and would impact 1.6 acres of wetlands and 8.8 acres of parkland. Eight residences and five businesses would be displaced. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. Noise impacts would occur at 426 receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110343, Final EIS--379 pages, Appendices and Exhibits--497 pages, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910686405?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-14 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Earthen Levee Shear Stress Estimates for Combined Wave Overtopping and Surge Overflow AN - 1827893392; PQ0003648094 AB - A total of 25 small-scale laboratory experiments simulating combined wave overtopping and storm-surge overflow on a trapezoidal levee were conducted at a nominal prototype-to-model scale of NL=25. Time series measurements of irregular and unsteady flow thickness and velocity were acquired at two locations on the landward-side, 1Va:a3H slope. These measurements were used to calculate the time series of instantaneous shear stress representing the average over a 4.8-m-long (prototype scale) levee slope between the two measurement locations. Empirical relationships are presented for estimating the mean shear stresses for steady overflow and for combined wave and surge overtopping. For the latter case, additional formulas are given for estimating representative parameters of the irregular shear stress peaks associated with individual overtopping waves. The collected data were intended primarily for the design of rapidly deployable levee armoring systems; however, the data could also be used to evaluate the erosion of soil or vegetated levees and dikes. JF - Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering AU - Hughes, Steven A AU - Shaw, Justin M AU - Howard, Isaac L AD - Senior Research Scientist, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523; formerly, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS 39180., steven.a.hughespe@gmail.com Y1 - 2011/10/14/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Oct 14 SP - 267 EP - 273 PB - American Society of Civil Engineers, 345 E. 47th St. New York NY 10017-2398 United States VL - 138 IS - 3 SN - 0733-950X, 0733-950X KW - Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts KW - Technical Notes KW - Technical Note KW - Levees KW - Dikes KW - Wave overtopping KW - Shear stress KW - Steady flow KW - Overflow KW - Storm surges KW - Leeves KW - Physical model KW - Steady overflow KW - Laboratory study KW - Peak shear stress KW - Offshore engineering KW - Prototypes KW - Time series analysis KW - Engineering KW - Soils KW - Shear Stress KW - Waves KW - Slopes KW - Laboratory experiments KW - Overtopping KW - Marine KW - Surges KW - Erosion KW - Oceans KW - Coastal oceanography KW - Waterways KW - Unsteady flow KW - AQ 00001:Water Resources and Supplies KW - SW 5010:Network design KW - Q2 09102:Institutes and organizations KW - M2 551.5:General (551.5) UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1827893392?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Waterway%2C+Port%2C+Coastal+and+Ocean+Engineering&rft.atitle=Earthen+Levee+Shear+Stress+Estimates+for+Combined+Wave+Overtopping+and+Surge+Overflow&rft.au=Hughes%2C+Steven+A%3BShaw%2C+Justin+M%3BHoward%2C+Isaac+L&rft.aulast=Hughes&rft.aufirst=Steven&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=138&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=267&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Waterway%2C+Port%2C+Coastal+and+Ocean+Engineering&rft.issn=0733950X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F%28ASCE%29WW.1943-5460.0000135 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2016-10-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Overflow; Shear stress; Offshore engineering; Prototypes; Soils; Surges; Levees; Unsteady flow; Overtopping; Erosion; Coastal oceanography; Time series analysis; Laboratory experiments; Engineering; Oceans; Shear Stress; Waves; Waterways; Slopes; Marine DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WW.1943-5460.0000135 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Hydraulic Stability Analysis for the Turbines in Laojiangdi Hydropower Station AN - 907193306; 16043638 AB - After putting into operation of 4 098 h, the outlet edge of runner blades in Laojiangdi Hydropower Station emerges a large number of cracks. The unit selection, blade material and operation mode are analyzed to find the reasons of blade cracking and the solutions are also proposed. The study can be as reference for the unit selection and design of similar hydropower stations. JF - Shuili Fadian/Water Power AU - Ren, Q AU - Guo, J AU - Yang, Q AU - Liu, G AD - Guizhou Survey & Design Research Institute for Water Resources and Hydropower, Guiyang 550002, Guizhou, China Y1 - 2011/10/12/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Oct 12 SP - 63 EP - 65 PB - Water Power Press Co., Ltd., No. 2 Beixiaojie Liupukang, Dewai Xicheng District, Beijing, China China VL - 37 IS - 10 SN - 0559-9342, 0559-9342 KW - Aqualine Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Hydraulics KW - Outlets KW - Hydroelectric power KW - Hydroelectric Plants KW - hydroelectric power KW - Turbines KW - Power plants KW - Cracks KW - Hydroelectric power plants KW - Stability Analysis KW - Q2 09282:Materials technology, corrosion, fouling and boring KW - AQ 00005:Underground Services and Water Use KW - SW 6030:Hydraulic machinery UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/907193306?accountid=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=Shuili+Fadian%2FWater+Power&rft.atitle=Hydraulic+Stability+Analysis+for+the+Turbines+in+Laojiangdi+Hydropower+Station&rft.au=Ren%2C+Q%3BGuo%2C+J%3BYang%2C+Q%3BLiu%2C+G&rft.aulast=Ren&rft.aufirst=Q&rft.date=2011-10-12&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=63&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Shuili+Fadian%2FWater+Power&rft.issn=05599342&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - Chinese DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-02 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Turbines; Hydroelectric power; Power plants; Hydroelectric power plants; Cracks; Hydraulics; hydroelectric power; Outlets; Hydroelectric Plants; Stability Analysis ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 123 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376589; 15093-5_0123 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 123 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376589?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 122 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376588; 15093-5_0122 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 122 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376588?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 109 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376587; 15093-5_0109 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 109 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376587?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 113 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376586; 15093-5_0113 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 113 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376586?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 108 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376585; 15093-5_0108 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 108 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376585?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 121 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376584; 15093-5_0121 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 121 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376584?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 112 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376583; 15093-5_0112 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 112 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376583?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 107 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376582; 15093-5_0107 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 107 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376582?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 120 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376581; 15093-5_0120 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 120 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376581?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 111 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376580; 15093-5_0111 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 111 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376580?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 106 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376579; 15093-5_0106 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 106 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376579?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 119 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376578; 15093-5_0119 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 119 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376578?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 110 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376577; 15093-5_0110 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 110 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376577?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 105 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376576; 15093-5_0105 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 105 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376576?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 94 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376575; 15093-5_0094 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 94 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376575?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 102 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376574; 15093-5_0102 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 102 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376574?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 100 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376573; 15093-5_0100 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 100 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376573?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 104 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376572; 15093-5_0104 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 104 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376572?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 93 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376571; 15093-5_0093 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 93 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376571?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 99 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376570; 15093-5_0099 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 99 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376570?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 101 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376569; 15093-5_0101 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 101 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376569?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 103 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376568; 15093-5_0103 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 103 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376568?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 92 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376567; 15093-5_0092 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 92 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376567?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 98 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376566; 15093-5_0098 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 98 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376566?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 49 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376565; 15093-5_0049 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 49 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376565?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 37 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376564; 15093-5_0037 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 37 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376564?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 91 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376563; 15093-5_0091 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 91 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376563?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 97 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376562; 15093-5_0097 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 97 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376562?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 48 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376561; 15093-5_0048 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 48 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376561?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 36 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376560; 15093-5_0036 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376560?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 90 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376559; 15093-5_0090 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 90 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376559?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 96 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376558; 15093-5_0096 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 96 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376558?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 125 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376557; 15093-5_0125 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 125 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376557?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 47 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376556; 15093-5_0047 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 47 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376556?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 35 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376555; 15093-5_0035 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376555?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 95 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376554; 15093-5_0095 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 95 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376554?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 46 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376553; 15093-5_0046 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 46 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376553?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 34 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376551; 15093-5_0034 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376551?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 43 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376549; 15093-5_0043 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 43 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376549?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 23 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376548; 15093-5_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376548?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 33 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376547; 15093-5_0033 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376547?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 14 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376546; 15093-5_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376546?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 42 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376545; 15093-5_0042 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 42 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376545?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 40 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376544; 15093-5_0040 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 40 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376544?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 32 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376543; 15093-5_0032 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376543?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 22 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376542; 15093-5_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376542?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 41 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376541; 15093-5_0041 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 41 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376541?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 31 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376539; 15093-5_0031 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376539?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 13 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376538; 15093-5_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376538?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 20 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376536; 15093-5_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376536?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 12 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376535; 15093-5_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376535?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 38 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376534; 15093-5_0038 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376534?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 118 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376533; 15093-5_0118 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 118 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376533?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 117 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376530; 15093-5_0117 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 117 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376530?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Affective+Disorders&rft.atitle=Effects+of+adjunctive+peer+support+on+perceptions+of+illness+control+and+understanding+in+an+online+psychoeducation+program+for+bipolar+disorder%3A+A+randomised+controlled+trial&rft.au=Proudfoot%2C+Judith%3BParker%2C+Gordon%3BManicavasagar%2C+Vijaya%3BHadzi-Pavlovic%2C+Dusan%3BWhitton%2C+Alexis%3BNicholas%2C+Jennifer%3BSmith%2C+Meg%3BBurckhardt%2C+Rowan&rft.aulast=Proudfoot&rft.aufirst=Judith&rft.date=2012-12-15&rft.volume=142&rft.issue=1-3&rft.spage=98&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Affective+Disorders&rft.issn=01650327&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.jad.2012.04.007 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 5 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376529; 15093-5_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376529?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 19 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376528; 15093-5_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376528?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 10 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376527; 15093-5_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376527?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 45 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376526; 15093-5_0045 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 45 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376526?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 4 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376525; 15093-5_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376525?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 18 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376524; 15093-5_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376524?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 3 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376523; 15093-5_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376523?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 17 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376522; 15093-5_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376522?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 44 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376521; 15093-5_0044 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 44 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376521?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 2 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376520; 15093-5_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376520?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 54 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376519; 15093-5_0054 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 54 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376519?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 52 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376518; 15093-5_0052 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 52 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376518?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 16 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376517; 15093-5_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376517?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 30 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376516; 15093-5_0030 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376516?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 53 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376515; 15093-5_0053 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 53 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376515?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 15 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376512; 15093-5_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376512?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 50 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376511; 15093-5_0050 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 50 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376511?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 28 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376510; 15093-5_0028 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376510?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 9 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376508; 15093-5_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376508?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 115 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376507; 15093-5_0115 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 115 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376507?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 8 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376505; 15093-5_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376505?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 114 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376504; 15093-5_0114 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 114 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376504?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 7 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376503; 15093-5_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376503?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 26 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376502; 15093-5_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376502?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 25 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376501; 15093-5_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376501?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 24 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376500; 15093-5_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376500?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 84 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376499; 15093-5_0084 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 84 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376499?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 82 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376497; 15093-5_0082 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 82 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376497?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 81 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376496; 15093-5_0081 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 81 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376496?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 80 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376495; 15093-5_0080 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 80 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376495?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 79 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376494; 15093-5_0079 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 79 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376494?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 78 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376493; 15093-5_0078 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 78 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376493?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 77 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376492; 15093-5_0077 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 77 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376492?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 76 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376491; 15093-5_0076 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 76 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376491?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 74 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376489; 15093-5_0074 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 74 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376489?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONTANORE PROJECT, KOOTENAI NATIONAL FOREST, LINCOLN COUNTY, MONTANA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2009). [Part 3 of 3] T2 - MONTANORE PROJECT, KOOTENAI NATIONAL FOREST, LINCOLN COUNTY, MONTANA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2009). AN - 910376485; 15090-2_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a copper and silver underground mine and an associated electric transmission line near Libby in Lincoln County, Montana are proposed by Montanore Minerals Corp. (MMC), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mines Management, Inc. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to acid rock drainage and near neutral pH metal leaching, surface and ground water, fish and aquatic habitat, scenic areas, endangered wildlife, and wetlands. Three mine alternatives, plus a No Action Alternative, and four transmission line alternatives, plus a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the February 2009 draft EIS. This draft supplemental EIS was prepared after public comment and the subsequent revision of the agencies mine alternatives (Alternatives 3 and 4) and transmission line alignments (Alternatives C, D, and E). Changes to the mine alternatives address issues associated with water quality and transmission line alignments were modified primarily to avoid effects on private land. The proposed project (Alternative 2) would consist initially of a 12,500-tons-per-day underground mining operation that would expand to a 20,000-tons-per-day rate. The surface mill and mine production adits would be located on the Kootenai National Forest outside of the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness in the Ramsey Creek drainage. An additional adit would be located on private land in the Libby Creek drainage, and a vertical opening would be built for ventilation on MMCs two patented mining claims adjacent to Rock Lake. A tailings impoundment would require the diversion of Little Cherry Creek and two land application disposal (LAD) areas would allow for discharge of water and waste rock. The proposed project would require construction of 16 miles of electric transmission line from a new substation adjacent to Bonneville Power Administration Noxon-Libby transmission line to the project site. The 230-kilovolt transmission line alignment would extend from the Sedlak Park Substation in Pleasant Valley along US 2, and then up the Miller Creek drainage to the project site. Under Alternative 3, which is the preferred mine alternative, four major mine facilities would be relocated and a tailings impoundment site would be developed north of Poorman Creek. The LAD areas would not be used and all water would be treated at the water treatment plant before discharge. Alternative D-R, which is the preferred transmission line alternative, would involve construction on an east-facing ridge north of the Sedlak Park substation instead of following the Fisher River and would further modify the transmission line proposal with regard to structures, helicopter use, and vegetation clearing. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the orderly and economic mining of copper and silver deposits in northwestern Montana to meet a portion of current and future public demand while ensuring compliance with federal and state laws and regulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would disturb 1,539 acres and affect 8.8 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, 3.4 acres of isolated wetlands, and about 19,000 linear feet of waters of the U.S. The inflow of groundwater into the adits and mine void would lower the groundwater table and change in-stream baseflow in drainages adjacent to the mine and adits. Streamflow in Poorman, Little Cherry and Libby creeks is predicted to be reduced collectively by 0.55 cubic feet per second. Seepage not captured by the collection system at the tailings impoundment would alter existing groundwater quality. The mineral deposit proposed for mining would have low to moderate risk of acid generation. Habitat of grizzly bear, gray wolf and Canada lynx would be affected permanently, but proposed land acquisitions would reduce impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0141D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110332, Supplemental Draft EIS (Volume I)--656 pages, Figures and Appendices (Volume II)--352 pages, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Acids KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Mines KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Treatment KW - Watersheds KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cabinet Mountains Wilderness KW - Kootenai National Forest KW - Montana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376485?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONTANORE+PROJECT%2C+KOOTENAI+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2009%29.&rft.title=MONTANORE+PROJECT%2C+KOOTENAI+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Libby, Montana; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONTANORE PROJECT, KOOTENAI NATIONAL FOREST, LINCOLN COUNTY, MONTANA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2009). [Part 2 of 3] T2 - MONTANORE PROJECT, KOOTENAI NATIONAL FOREST, LINCOLN COUNTY, MONTANA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2009). AN - 910376484; 15090-2_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a copper and silver underground mine and an associated electric transmission line near Libby in Lincoln County, Montana are proposed by Montanore Minerals Corp. (MMC), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mines Management, Inc. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to acid rock drainage and near neutral pH metal leaching, surface and ground water, fish and aquatic habitat, scenic areas, endangered wildlife, and wetlands. Three mine alternatives, plus a No Action Alternative, and four transmission line alternatives, plus a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the February 2009 draft EIS. This draft supplemental EIS was prepared after public comment and the subsequent revision of the agencies mine alternatives (Alternatives 3 and 4) and transmission line alignments (Alternatives C, D, and E). Changes to the mine alternatives address issues associated with water quality and transmission line alignments were modified primarily to avoid effects on private land. The proposed project (Alternative 2) would consist initially of a 12,500-tons-per-day underground mining operation that would expand to a 20,000-tons-per-day rate. The surface mill and mine production adits would be located on the Kootenai National Forest outside of the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness in the Ramsey Creek drainage. An additional adit would be located on private land in the Libby Creek drainage, and a vertical opening would be built for ventilation on MMCs two patented mining claims adjacent to Rock Lake. A tailings impoundment would require the diversion of Little Cherry Creek and two land application disposal (LAD) areas would allow for discharge of water and waste rock. The proposed project would require construction of 16 miles of electric transmission line from a new substation adjacent to Bonneville Power Administration Noxon-Libby transmission line to the project site. The 230-kilovolt transmission line alignment would extend from the Sedlak Park Substation in Pleasant Valley along US 2, and then up the Miller Creek drainage to the project site. Under Alternative 3, which is the preferred mine alternative, four major mine facilities would be relocated and a tailings impoundment site would be developed north of Poorman Creek. The LAD areas would not be used and all water would be treated at the water treatment plant before discharge. Alternative D-R, which is the preferred transmission line alternative, would involve construction on an east-facing ridge north of the Sedlak Park substation instead of following the Fisher River and would further modify the transmission line proposal with regard to structures, helicopter use, and vegetation clearing. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the orderly and economic mining of copper and silver deposits in northwestern Montana to meet a portion of current and future public demand while ensuring compliance with federal and state laws and regulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would disturb 1,539 acres and affect 8.8 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, 3.4 acres of isolated wetlands, and about 19,000 linear feet of waters of the U.S. The inflow of groundwater into the adits and mine void would lower the groundwater table and change in-stream baseflow in drainages adjacent to the mine and adits. Streamflow in Poorman, Little Cherry and Libby creeks is predicted to be reduced collectively by 0.55 cubic feet per second. Seepage not captured by the collection system at the tailings impoundment would alter existing groundwater quality. The mineral deposit proposed for mining would have low to moderate risk of acid generation. Habitat of grizzly bear, gray wolf and Canada lynx would be affected permanently, but proposed land acquisitions would reduce impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0141D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110332, Supplemental Draft EIS (Volume I)--656 pages, Figures and Appendices (Volume II)--352 pages, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Acids KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Mines KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Treatment KW - Watersheds KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cabinet Mountains Wilderness KW - Kootenai National Forest KW - Montana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376484?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONTANORE+PROJECT%2C+KOOTENAI+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2009%29.&rft.title=MONTANORE+PROJECT%2C+KOOTENAI+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Libby, Montana; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONTANORE PROJECT, KOOTENAI NATIONAL FOREST, LINCOLN COUNTY, MONTANA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2009). [Part 1 of 3] T2 - MONTANORE PROJECT, KOOTENAI NATIONAL FOREST, LINCOLN COUNTY, MONTANA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2009). AN - 910376483; 15090-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a copper and silver underground mine and an associated electric transmission line near Libby in Lincoln County, Montana are proposed by Montanore Minerals Corp. (MMC), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mines Management, Inc. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to acid rock drainage and near neutral pH metal leaching, surface and ground water, fish and aquatic habitat, scenic areas, endangered wildlife, and wetlands. Three mine alternatives, plus a No Action Alternative, and four transmission line alternatives, plus a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the February 2009 draft EIS. This draft supplemental EIS was prepared after public comment and the subsequent revision of the agencies mine alternatives (Alternatives 3 and 4) and transmission line alignments (Alternatives C, D, and E). Changes to the mine alternatives address issues associated with water quality and transmission line alignments were modified primarily to avoid effects on private land. The proposed project (Alternative 2) would consist initially of a 12,500-tons-per-day underground mining operation that would expand to a 20,000-tons-per-day rate. The surface mill and mine production adits would be located on the Kootenai National Forest outside of the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness in the Ramsey Creek drainage. An additional adit would be located on private land in the Libby Creek drainage, and a vertical opening would be built for ventilation on MMCs two patented mining claims adjacent to Rock Lake. A tailings impoundment would require the diversion of Little Cherry Creek and two land application disposal (LAD) areas would allow for discharge of water and waste rock. The proposed project would require construction of 16 miles of electric transmission line from a new substation adjacent to Bonneville Power Administration Noxon-Libby transmission line to the project site. The 230-kilovolt transmission line alignment would extend from the Sedlak Park Substation in Pleasant Valley along US 2, and then up the Miller Creek drainage to the project site. Under Alternative 3, which is the preferred mine alternative, four major mine facilities would be relocated and a tailings impoundment site would be developed north of Poorman Creek. The LAD areas would not be used and all water would be treated at the water treatment plant before discharge. Alternative D-R, which is the preferred transmission line alternative, would involve construction on an east-facing ridge north of the Sedlak Park substation instead of following the Fisher River and would further modify the transmission line proposal with regard to structures, helicopter use, and vegetation clearing. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the orderly and economic mining of copper and silver deposits in northwestern Montana to meet a portion of current and future public demand while ensuring compliance with federal and state laws and regulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would disturb 1,539 acres and affect 8.8 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, 3.4 acres of isolated wetlands, and about 19,000 linear feet of waters of the U.S. The inflow of groundwater into the adits and mine void would lower the groundwater table and change in-stream baseflow in drainages adjacent to the mine and adits. Streamflow in Poorman, Little Cherry and Libby creeks is predicted to be reduced collectively by 0.55 cubic feet per second. Seepage not captured by the collection system at the tailings impoundment would alter existing groundwater quality. The mineral deposit proposed for mining would have low to moderate risk of acid generation. Habitat of grizzly bear, gray wolf and Canada lynx would be affected permanently, but proposed land acquisitions would reduce impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0141D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110332, Supplemental Draft EIS (Volume I)--656 pages, Figures and Appendices (Volume II)--352 pages, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Acids KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Mines KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Treatment KW - Watersheds KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cabinet Mountains Wilderness KW - Kootenai National Forest KW - Montana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376483?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONTANORE+PROJECT%2C+KOOTENAI+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2009%29.&rft.title=MONTANORE+PROJECT%2C+KOOTENAI+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Libby, Montana; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 88 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376482; 15093-5_0088 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 88 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376482?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 87 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376479; 15093-5_0087 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 87 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376479?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 86 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376476; 15093-5_0086 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 86 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376476?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 85 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376473; 15093-5_0085 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 85 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376473?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 1 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376468; 15093-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376468?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=5&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=121&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Developmental+and+Physical+Disabilities&rft.issn=1056263X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2FBF01045971 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 73 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376461; 15093-5_0073 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 73 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376461?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 71 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376443; 15093-5_0071 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 71 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376443?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 70 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376442; 15093-5_0070 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 70 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376442?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 68 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376440; 15093-5_0068 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 68 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376440?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 67 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376439; 15093-5_0067 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 67 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376439?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 66 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376438; 15093-5_0066 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 66 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376438?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 65 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376437; 15093-5_0065 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 65 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376437?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 64 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376434; 15093-5_0064 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 64 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376434?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 57 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376342; 15093-5_0057 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 57 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376342?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 56 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376317; 15093-5_0056 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 56 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376317?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 60 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376297; 15093-5_0060 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 60 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376297?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 62 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376290; 15093-5_0062 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 62 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376290?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 59 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376289; 15093-5_0059 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 59 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376289?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 58 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376288; 15093-5_0058 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 58 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376288?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=Jason&rft.date=2013-07-01&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=344&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Applied+Research+in+Intellectual+Disabilities&rft.issn=13602322&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111%2Fjar.12002 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 61 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376287; 15093-5_0061 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 61 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376287?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2011). [Part 3 of 3] T2 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2011). AN - 910376280; 15097-9_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a second explosives handling wharf (EHW-2) at Naval Base Kitsap Bangor (NBK Bangor) in Silverdale, Kitsap County, Washington are proposed. NBK Bangor is located on the Hood Canal approximately 20 miles west of Seattle and provides berthing and support services to TRIDENT submarines. The entirety of NBK Bangor, including the land areas and adjacent waters in Hood Canal, is restricted from general public use. The EHW-2 would be adjacent to but separate from the existing EHW and would consist of the wharf proper and access trestles. The draft EIS of March 2011 evaluated a No Action Alternative and five action alternatives consisting of combinations of two access trestle layouts (separate and combined) and three wharf configurations (conventional pile-supported, large pile, and floating). The Combined Trestle, Large Pile Wharf Alternative (Alternative 1), was identified as the preferred alternative. This draft supplement addresses the methodology used to assess the potential for injurious impacts to the marbled murrelet from impact pile driving; the construction and operation of four new facilities proposed to be built to replace the functions of five buildings to be demolished and the associated infrastructure; and compensatory mitigation options under consideration to offset unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources. The project would also include construction of an upland road, an abutment where the trestles connect to the shore, and an upland construction staging area. Approximately 20 existing facilities and/or structures in proximity to the proposed structure would be modified or demolished to comply with safety and security activity requirements. The marine and terrestrial construction would occur over approximately four years. In-water work would be subject to timing and seasonal restrictions to avoid and minimize impacts. Construction would typically occur six days per week, but could occur seven days per week. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new wharf would support future program requirements for the eight submarines homeported at NBK Bangor and for the TRIDENT II strategic weapons system. Implementation would provide a substantial economic benefit to the local and regional economy through the creation of 4,370 direct jobs and 1,970 indirect and induced jobs. Total economic output to the region would be in excess of $722 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Upland construction would result in disturbance of 6.6 vegetated acres and loss of 0.18 acre of wetland. Construction would generate noise, turbidity, and air pollutant emissions. Long term impacts would include loss and shading of marine habitat including eelgrass, macroalgae and benthic community, and interference with migration of juvenile salmon. All action alternatives would have the potential to adversely affect fish (including tribal treaty-reserved resources), birds, and marine mammals. Species that may be adversely affected include Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Puget Sound steelhead, bull trout, bocaccio, yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish, Steller sea lion, and marbled murrelet. Construction would alter the setting of the existing EHW, which is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110339, 74 pages, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Defense Programs KW - Birds KW - Buildings KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Demolition KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Submarines KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Hood Canal KW - Naval Base Kitsap Bangor KW - Washington KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376280?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRIDENT+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+EXPLOSIVES+HANDLING+WHARF+%28EHW-2%29%2C+NAVAL+BASE+KITSAP+BANGOR%2C+SILVERDALE%2C+KITSAP+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2011%29.&rft.title=TRIDENT+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+EXPLOSIVES+HANDLING+WHARF+%28EHW-2%29%2C+NAVAL+BASE+KITSAP+BANGOR%2C+SILVERDALE%2C+KITSAP+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2011%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest, Silverdale, Washington; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2011). [Part 2 of 3] T2 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2011). AN - 910376279; 15097-9_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a second explosives handling wharf (EHW-2) at Naval Base Kitsap Bangor (NBK Bangor) in Silverdale, Kitsap County, Washington are proposed. NBK Bangor is located on the Hood Canal approximately 20 miles west of Seattle and provides berthing and support services to TRIDENT submarines. The entirety of NBK Bangor, including the land areas and adjacent waters in Hood Canal, is restricted from general public use. The EHW-2 would be adjacent to but separate from the existing EHW and would consist of the wharf proper and access trestles. The draft EIS of March 2011 evaluated a No Action Alternative and five action alternatives consisting of combinations of two access trestle layouts (separate and combined) and three wharf configurations (conventional pile-supported, large pile, and floating). The Combined Trestle, Large Pile Wharf Alternative (Alternative 1), was identified as the preferred alternative. This draft supplement addresses the methodology used to assess the potential for injurious impacts to the marbled murrelet from impact pile driving; the construction and operation of four new facilities proposed to be built to replace the functions of five buildings to be demolished and the associated infrastructure; and compensatory mitigation options under consideration to offset unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources. The project would also include construction of an upland road, an abutment where the trestles connect to the shore, and an upland construction staging area. Approximately 20 existing facilities and/or structures in proximity to the proposed structure would be modified or demolished to comply with safety and security activity requirements. The marine and terrestrial construction would occur over approximately four years. In-water work would be subject to timing and seasonal restrictions to avoid and minimize impacts. Construction would typically occur six days per week, but could occur seven days per week. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new wharf would support future program requirements for the eight submarines homeported at NBK Bangor and for the TRIDENT II strategic weapons system. Implementation would provide a substantial economic benefit to the local and regional economy through the creation of 4,370 direct jobs and 1,970 indirect and induced jobs. Total economic output to the region would be in excess of $722 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Upland construction would result in disturbance of 6.6 vegetated acres and loss of 0.18 acre of wetland. Construction would generate noise, turbidity, and air pollutant emissions. Long term impacts would include loss and shading of marine habitat including eelgrass, macroalgae and benthic community, and interference with migration of juvenile salmon. All action alternatives would have the potential to adversely affect fish (including tribal treaty-reserved resources), birds, and marine mammals. Species that may be adversely affected include Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Puget Sound steelhead, bull trout, bocaccio, yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish, Steller sea lion, and marbled murrelet. Construction would alter the setting of the existing EHW, which is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110339, 74 pages, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Defense Programs KW - Birds KW - Buildings KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Demolition KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Submarines KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Hood Canal KW - Naval Base Kitsap Bangor KW - Washington KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376279?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRIDENT+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+EXPLOSIVES+HANDLING+WHARF+%28EHW-2%29%2C+NAVAL+BASE+KITSAP+BANGOR%2C+SILVERDALE%2C+KITSAP+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2011%29.&rft.title=TRIDENT+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+EXPLOSIVES+HANDLING+WHARF+%28EHW-2%29%2C+NAVAL+BASE+KITSAP+BANGOR%2C+SILVERDALE%2C+KITSAP+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2011%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest, Silverdale, Washington; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2011). [Part 1 of 3] T2 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2011). AN - 910376277; 15097-9_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a second explosives handling wharf (EHW-2) at Naval Base Kitsap Bangor (NBK Bangor) in Silverdale, Kitsap County, Washington are proposed. NBK Bangor is located on the Hood Canal approximately 20 miles west of Seattle and provides berthing and support services to TRIDENT submarines. The entirety of NBK Bangor, including the land areas and adjacent waters in Hood Canal, is restricted from general public use. The EHW-2 would be adjacent to but separate from the existing EHW and would consist of the wharf proper and access trestles. The draft EIS of March 2011 evaluated a No Action Alternative and five action alternatives consisting of combinations of two access trestle layouts (separate and combined) and three wharf configurations (conventional pile-supported, large pile, and floating). The Combined Trestle, Large Pile Wharf Alternative (Alternative 1), was identified as the preferred alternative. This draft supplement addresses the methodology used to assess the potential for injurious impacts to the marbled murrelet from impact pile driving; the construction and operation of four new facilities proposed to be built to replace the functions of five buildings to be demolished and the associated infrastructure; and compensatory mitigation options under consideration to offset unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources. The project would also include construction of an upland road, an abutment where the trestles connect to the shore, and an upland construction staging area. Approximately 20 existing facilities and/or structures in proximity to the proposed structure would be modified or demolished to comply with safety and security activity requirements. The marine and terrestrial construction would occur over approximately four years. In-water work would be subject to timing and seasonal restrictions to avoid and minimize impacts. Construction would typically occur six days per week, but could occur seven days per week. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new wharf would support future program requirements for the eight submarines homeported at NBK Bangor and for the TRIDENT II strategic weapons system. Implementation would provide a substantial economic benefit to the local and regional economy through the creation of 4,370 direct jobs and 1,970 indirect and induced jobs. Total economic output to the region would be in excess of $722 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Upland construction would result in disturbance of 6.6 vegetated acres and loss of 0.18 acre of wetland. Construction would generate noise, turbidity, and air pollutant emissions. Long term impacts would include loss and shading of marine habitat including eelgrass, macroalgae and benthic community, and interference with migration of juvenile salmon. All action alternatives would have the potential to adversely affect fish (including tribal treaty-reserved resources), birds, and marine mammals. Species that may be adversely affected include Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Puget Sound steelhead, bull trout, bocaccio, yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish, Steller sea lion, and marbled murrelet. Construction would alter the setting of the existing EHW, which is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110339, 74 pages, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Defense Programs KW - Birds KW - Buildings KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Demolition KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Submarines KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Hood Canal KW - Naval Base Kitsap Bangor KW - Washington KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376277?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRIDENT+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+EXPLOSIVES+HANDLING+WHARF+%28EHW-2%29%2C+NAVAL+BASE+KITSAP+BANGOR%2C+SILVERDALE%2C+KITSAP+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2011%29.&rft.title=TRIDENT+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+EXPLOSIVES+HANDLING+WHARF+%28EHW-2%29%2C+NAVAL+BASE+KITSAP+BANGOR%2C+SILVERDALE%2C+KITSAP+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2011%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest, Silverdale, Washington; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 55 of 125] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 910376220; 15093-5_0055 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 55 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376220?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2011). AN - 908487031; 15097 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a second explosives handling wharf (EHW-2) at Naval Base Kitsap Bangor (NBK Bangor) in Silverdale, Kitsap County, Washington are proposed. NBK Bangor is located on the Hood Canal approximately 20 miles west of Seattle and provides berthing and support services to TRIDENT submarines. The entirety of NBK Bangor, including the land areas and adjacent waters in Hood Canal, is restricted from general public use. The EHW-2 would be adjacent to but separate from the existing EHW and would consist of the wharf proper and access trestles. The draft EIS of March 2011 evaluated a No Action Alternative and five action alternatives consisting of combinations of two access trestle layouts (separate and combined) and three wharf configurations (conventional pile-supported, large pile, and floating). The Combined Trestle, Large Pile Wharf Alternative (Alternative 1), was identified as the preferred alternative. This draft supplement addresses the methodology used to assess the potential for injurious impacts to the marbled murrelet from impact pile driving; the construction and operation of four new facilities proposed to be built to replace the functions of five buildings to be demolished and the associated infrastructure; and compensatory mitigation options under consideration to offset unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources. The project would also include construction of an upland road, an abutment where the trestles connect to the shore, and an upland construction staging area. Approximately 20 existing facilities and/or structures in proximity to the proposed structure would be modified or demolished to comply with safety and security activity requirements. The marine and terrestrial construction would occur over approximately four years. In-water work would be subject to timing and seasonal restrictions to avoid and minimize impacts. Construction would typically occur six days per week, but could occur seven days per week. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new wharf would support future program requirements for the eight submarines homeported at NBK Bangor and for the TRIDENT II strategic weapons system. Implementation would provide a substantial economic benefit to the local and regional economy through the creation of 4,370 direct jobs and 1,970 indirect and induced jobs. Total economic output to the region would be in excess of $722 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Upland construction would result in disturbance of 6.6 vegetated acres and loss of 0.18 acre of wetland. Construction would generate noise, turbidity, and air pollutant emissions. Long term impacts would include loss and shading of marine habitat including eelgrass, macroalgae and benthic community, and interference with migration of juvenile salmon. All action alternatives would have the potential to adversely affect fish (including tribal treaty-reserved resources), birds, and marine mammals. Species that may be adversely affected include Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Puget Sound steelhead, bull trout, bocaccio, yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish, Steller sea lion, and marbled murrelet. Construction would alter the setting of the existing EHW, which is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110339, 74 pages, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Defense Programs KW - Birds KW - Buildings KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Demolition KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Submarines KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Hood Canal KW - Naval Base Kitsap Bangor KW - Washington KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/908487031?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=Eric&rft.date=2005-12-01&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=281&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Applied+Research+in+Intellectual+Disabilities&rft.issn=13602322&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111%2Fj.1468-3148.2005.00266.x LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest, Silverdale, Washington; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-06 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 908487021; 15093 AB - PURPOSE: Risk management measures to protect the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota from flooding of the Red River of the North are proposed. The analysis area encompasses the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area plus areas in the floodplain of the Red River from 300 river miles north of Fargo near Emerson, Manitoba to 30 miles south of Fargo near Abercrombie, North Dakota. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area. The 600-square-mile Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area encompasses several smaller communities within ten miles of the Red River from Hickson, North Dakota to Georgetown, Minnesota. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 48 of the past 109 years, and every year from 1993 through 2011. Expected average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195 million in the future without new protection measures. The May 2010 draft EIS analyzed a No Action Alternative and three action plans: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40K); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35K); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35K). In September 2010, hydraulic modeling indicated that the ND35K plan, which was the locally preferred plan (LPP), would have more extensive downstream impacts than previously anticipated. The April 2011 draft supplemental EIS provided additional analyses and identified ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. This final EIS analyzes the alternatives and identifies the LPP as the selected alternative. The revised LPP diversion channel would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood. It ultimately would re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, Minnesota. Along the 36-mile path it would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. Design changes include the addition of approximately 200,000 acre-feet of staging and storage, along with optimization of the channel cross section. The plan includes 19 highway bridges and four railroad bridges that would cross the diversion channel. The upstream storage and staging areas allow for the capacity of the LPP diversion channel to be reduced to 20,000 cfs. Two hydraulic structures would control the flows passing into the protected area during larger flood events; one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, with effective flow widths of 150 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Both structures would become operable when the forecasted peak flow in the Red River of the North at Fargo is greater than 9,600 cfs. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, aqueduct structures would allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. The total estimated first cost of the LPP based on 2011 price levels is $1.78 billion and the overall benefit-cost ratio of the plan is 1.76. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. Under the LPP, downstream impacts are nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River and the LPP would also affect five tributaries and Wolverton Creek. However, none of the diversion channel alternatives would substantially alter sediment transport or other key geomorphic properties. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation and would require a substantial number of relocations for communities in the staging area. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, 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 10-0553D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110335, 585 pages and CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/908487021?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-06 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Dam gateway protection AN - 911163187; 16110825 AB - Accidents on navigable waterways in the US can cause barge tows to break up and, subsequently, allow individual barges to be carried downstream by the current. As a breakaway barge approaches a navigation structure, its path is essentially determined by the flow patterns around the lock and dam. A primary concern is that a barge will travel to the dam, pass between spillway gate piers, and either strike a gate or become jammed. JF - International Water Power and Dam Construction AU - Hammack, E A AU - Stockstill, R L AU - Hopkins, MA AU - Vaughan, J M AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, 3909 Halls Ferry Road. Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199, USA, Allen.Hammack@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2011/10// PY - 2011 DA - October 2011 SP - 30 EP - 32 PB - Wilmington Publishing Ltd., Wilmington House, Church Hill, Wilmington Dartford Kent DA2 7EF United Kingdom VL - 63 IS - 10 SN - 0306-400X, 0306-400X KW - Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Environment Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts KW - Travel KW - Accidents KW - piers KW - Dams KW - Downstream KW - Flow Pattern KW - Barges KW - Gates KW - Navigation KW - navigation KW - International Waters KW - downstream KW - International waters KW - Waterways KW - SW 6010:Structures KW - AQ 00005:Underground Services and Water Use KW - ENA 16:Renewable Resources-Water KW - Q2 09301:Surface vehicles UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/911163187?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=International+Water+Power+and+Dam+Construction&rft.atitle=Dam+gateway+protection&rft.au=Hammack%2C+E+A%3BStockstill%2C+R+L%3BHopkins%2C+MA%3BVaughan%2C+J+M&rft.aulast=Hammack&rft.aufirst=E&rft.date=2011-10-01&rft.volume=63&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=30&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=International+Water+Power+and+Dam+Construction&rft.issn=0306400X&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-02-04 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Accidents; International waters; Barges; Travel; piers; navigation; downstream; Dams; International Waters; Downstream; Gates; Waterways; Navigation; Flow Pattern ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Effects of salinity on photosynthesis and respiration of the seagrass Zostera japonica: A comparison of two established populations in North America AN - 899160198; 15674489 AB - Photosynthetic responses were quantified for two Zostera japonica Aschers. and Graebn. populations from the northern and southern limits of distribution exposed to a range of salinities along the Pacific Coast of North America. Plants were collected from Padilla Bay, Washington (northern) and Coos Bay, Oregon, USA (southern) and cultured together in experimental tanks at 3 salinities (5, 20 and 35) under saturating irradiance for 3 weeks. Subsequently, photosynthesis-irradiance (P vs. E curves) relationships for leaf segments from the two populations were assessed using an oxygen electrode system. We found no evidence for diel rhythms in either light saturated photosynthesis (Pmax) or dark respiration (Rd). For the Padilla Bay population, Pmax ranged from 192 to 390 mu mol O2 gDW-1h-1; for the Coos Bay population Pmax ranged from 226 to 774 mu mol O2 gDW-1h-1. Photosynthetic maxima of the Coos Bay plants occurred at a salinity of 20, whereas salinity had no effect on the photosynthetic maxima of the Padilla Bay plants. There were significant differences in leaf tissue Rd among salinity treatments but the two populations responded similarly to salinity. North American populations of Z. japonica are best adapted to intermediate salinities, displaying minimum Rd rates, lower compensation irradiance, higher saturation irradiance, and greater Pmax rates at a salinity of 20. Additionally, the southern population may be better adapted to southward expansion along the Pacific Coast and changes associated with global climate change. JF - Aquatic Botany AU - Shafer, Deborah J AU - Kaldy, James E AU - Sherman, Timothy D AU - Marko, Katharine M AD - US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Rd., Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA Y1 - 2011/10// PY - 2011 DA - October 2011 SP - 214 EP - 220 PB - Elsevier B.V., P.O. Box 211 Amsterdam 1000 AE Netherlands VL - 95 IS - 3 SN - 0304-3770, 0304-3770 KW - ASFA Aquaculture Abstracts; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources; Ecology Abstracts KW - INE, USA, Oregon, Coos Bay KW - Irradiance KW - Photosynthesis KW - Respiration KW - Climatic changes KW - Climate change KW - INE, USA, Washington KW - Comparative studies KW - Salinity effects KW - Coasts KW - Abiotic factors KW - Marine KW - Seagrasses KW - INE, USA, Washington, Padilla Bay KW - Leaves KW - Environmental impact KW - INE, USA, Oregon KW - Oxygen KW - Electrodes KW - Rhythms KW - Sea grass KW - Zostera japonica KW - D 04040:Ecosystem and Ecology Studies KW - Q3 08585:Plant culture KW - Q1 08585:Plant culture UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/899160198?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aecology&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Aquatic+Botany&rft.atitle=Effects+of+salinity+on+photosynthesis+and+respiration+of+the+seagrass+Zostera+japonica%3A+A+comparison+of+two+established+populations+in+North+America&rft.au=Shafer%2C+Deborah+J%3BKaldy%2C+James+E%3BSherman%2C+Timothy+D%3BMarko%2C+Katharine+M&rft.aulast=Shafer&rft.aufirst=Deborah&rft.date=2011-10-01&rft.volume=95&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=214&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Aquatic+Botany&rft.issn=03043770&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.aquabot.2011.06.003 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - Number of references - 2 N1 - Last updated - 2016-07-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Comparative studies; Photosynthesis; Respiration; Salinity effects; Climate change; Environmental impact; Leaves; Sea grass; Abiotic factors; Oxygen; Seagrasses; Irradiance; Climatic changes; Electrodes; Rhythms; Coasts; Zostera japonica; INE, USA, Oregon, Coos Bay; INE, USA, Oregon; INE, USA, Washington, Padilla Bay; INE, USA, Washington; Marine DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquabot.2011.06.003 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Liquefaction subsurface investigation for Milford Dam AN - 1535201199; 2014-037554 AB - The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) completed a liquefaction potential analysis as part of the seismic evaluation of Milford Dam in 1986. This paper uses data from the 1986 study to compare fines content data from in situ frozen and standard penetration test (SPT) samples that suggest fines content can be overestimated by 1-10% by SPT samples in stratified sand deposits. This result may have implications for liquefaction assessments because split-spoon samples may overestimate the actual fines content, resulting in a liquefiable deposit being classified as nonliquefiable. In addition, the paper evaluates the effectiveness of ground freezing on maintaining in situ soil structure and aging of the foundation sands at Milford Dam. JF - Canadian Geotechnical Journal = Revue Canadienne de Geotechnique AU - Stark, Timothy D AU - Lewis, Justin R AU - Castro, Gonzalo AU - Walberg, Francke C AU - Mathews, David L Y1 - 2011/10// PY - 2011 DA - October 2011 SP - 1504 EP - 1519 PB - National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, ON VL - 48 IS - 10 SN - 0008-3674, 0008-3674 KW - United States KW - soil mechanics KW - sand KW - shear strength KW - permafrost KW - penetration tests KW - Milford Dam KW - clastic sediments KW - cone penetration tests KW - liquefaction KW - foundations KW - Kansas KW - Geary County Kansas KW - sampling KW - seismic risk KW - dams KW - sediments KW - frozen ground KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1535201199?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Canadian+Geotechnical+Journal+%3D+Revue+Canadienne+de+Geotechnique&rft.atitle=Liquefaction+subsurface+investigation+for+Milford+Dam&rft.au=Stark%2C+Timothy+D%3BLewis%2C+Justin+R%3BCastro%2C+Gonzalo%3BWalberg%2C+Francke+C%3BMathews%2C+David+L&rft.aulast=Stark&rft.aufirst=Timothy&rft.date=2011-10-01&rft.volume=48&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=1504&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Canadian+Geotechnical+Journal+%3D+Revue+Canadienne+de+Geotechnique&rft.issn=00083674&rft_id=info:doi/10.1139%2Ft11-055 L2 - http://pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/rp-ps/journalDetail.jsp?jcode=cgj&lang=eng LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2014-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 32 N1 - PubXState - ON N1 - SuppNotes - Based on Publisher-supplied data N1 - Last updated - 2014-06-13 N1 - CODEN - CGJOAH N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - clastic sediments; cone penetration tests; dams; foundations; frozen ground; Geary County Kansas; Kansas; liquefaction; Milford Dam; penetration tests; permafrost; sampling; sand; sediments; seismic risk; shear strength; soil mechanics; United States DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/t11-055 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Quaternary stratigraphic basis for delineating hydrogeomorphic patches in the Upper Mississippi River valley AN - 1400616554; 2013-053034 AB - The Upper Mississippi River valley (UMV) has witnessed significant changes in fluvial style during the last glacial-interglacial cycle, including changes in stream gradient, channel pattern, sediment lithology, and location of depocenters. These changes are reflected in the landforms and sediments of the modern valley, and have produced associations of landforms and underlying sediments (Landform Sediment Associations and Allostratigraphic units) that are predictable and mapable at a variety of scales. These stratigraphic frameworks and valley-wide mapping efforts have been used extensively for managing the valley's cultural resources over the past two decades. Many physical characteristics used to distinguish units in these stratigraphic frameworks also influence groundwater movement, soils, and biogeochemical processes that interact with the river hydrology to produce hydrogeomorphic patches. Hydrogeomorphic patches are the physical template for the ecological functions performed in "functional process zones" which are a research province of aquatic ecologists. We provide examples of the application of existing UMV alluvial stratigraphy and geomorphic mapping to the identification of hydrogeomorphic patches in the context of river management and restoration. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Bettis, E Arthur, III AU - Theiling, C AU - Hajic, Edwin R AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2011/10// PY - 2011 DA - October 2011 SP - 509 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 43 IS - 5 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - cycles KW - Upper Mississippi Valley KW - Quaternary KW - Mississippi Valley KW - interglacial environment KW - stream sediments KW - landforms KW - ground water KW - Cenozoic KW - allostratigraphy KW - movement KW - glacial environment KW - sediments KW - fluvial features KW - ecology KW - geomorphology KW - fluvial environment KW - 24:Quaternary geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1400616554?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Quaternary+stratigraphic+basis+for+delineating+hydrogeomorphic+patches+in+the+Upper+Mississippi+River+valley&rft.au=Bettis%2C+E+Arthur%2C+III%3BTheiling%2C+C%3BHajic%2C+Edwin+R%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Bettis&rft.aufirst=E&rft.date=2011-10-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=509&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geological Society of America, 2011 annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2013, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2013-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2013-07-18 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - allostratigraphy; Cenozoic; cycles; ecology; fluvial environment; fluvial features; geomorphology; glacial environment; ground water; interglacial environment; landforms; Mississippi Valley; movement; Quaternary; sediments; stream sediments; United States; Upper Mississippi Valley ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Correlation of mineralogy and index properties with fully-softened shear strength of the Dallas floodway system AN - 1356356727; 2013-041944 AB - Laboratory testing was performed on high plasticity clays and clay shales from the Dallas Floodway System's Trinity River levees within Dallas County, Texas. Index tests such as the liquid limit, plasticity index, and clay fraction were determined while mineralogical analyses were also performed via X-ray diffraction (XRD). The mineralogy for these samples is primarily quartz, calcite, micas, and kaolinites. These results were compared to the index tests for two soil types: alluvial clays and the Eagle Ford Shale. A mineral's resistance to weathering was taken into account and the data compared in terms of stability. Previous research has shown that weathering can reduce the strength of a soil. The drained strength available in weathered soils is referred to as the fully-softened shear strength (FSS). This strength was replicated in the lab through blenderizing and is lower than the undrained peak strength of the soil and is higher than the residual strength. The soils tested for the Dallas levees have experienced significant weathering which may yield a high consequence of failure. The procedures developed by the Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) to determine FSS of these soils were compared to the clay mineral content. An attempt was also made to correlate the clay mineral content to the design strength and ultimately predict the level of weathering. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Berg, Ashley R M AU - Stephens, Isaac J AU - Olsen, Richard S AU - Pearson, Monte L AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2011/10// PY - 2011 DA - October 2011 SP - 417 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 43 IS - 5 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - shear strength KW - mineral composition KW - X-ray diffraction data KW - Texas KW - Dallas County Texas KW - rock mechanics KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1356356727?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Correlation+of+mineralogy+and+index+properties+with+fully-softened+shear+strength+of+the+Dallas+floodway+system&rft.au=Berg%2C+Ashley+R+M%3BStephens%2C+Isaac+J%3BOlsen%2C+Richard+S%3BPearson%2C+Monte+L%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Berg&rft.aufirst=Ashley+R&rft.date=2011-10-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=417&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geological Society of America, 2011 annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2013, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2013-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2013-05-30 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Dallas County Texas; mineral composition; rock mechanics; shear strength; Texas; United States; X-ray diffraction data ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Controls on oxidation and mobilization of metallic antimony in aqueous systems with simulated ground water AN - 1328504920; 2013-032785 AB - Antimony (Sb) is a contaminant of concern due to its toxic and, potentially, carcinogenic properties. One of the common sources of Sb in the environment is mobilization from spent Pb/Sb bullets used in army training and recreational shooting. Recent studies have shown that Sb in shooting range soils is present in either metallic Sb(0) form or as Sb(V) immobilized by Fe(III) oxides. Mobility of Sb depends on the oxidation state: Sb(V) is believed to be more mobile compared to Sb(III). The absence of Sb(III) in soils is indicative of fast kinetics of Sb(III) oxidation to Sb(V) under surface soil conditions; however in homogeneous aqueous systems, the oxidation of Sb(III) to Sb(V) by dissolved O (sub 2) is extremely slow. In oxic aqueous systems, dissolved Fe(II) and several other cations (e.g. Pb (super 2+) ) can increase the rate of Sb(III) oxidation to Sb(V). Currently, there is no clear understanding of major controls on the rate of Sb(0) oxidation and its mobility in surface soil. For this project we performed multiple experiments designed to quantify the rate of Sb(0) dissolution as it is oxidized to Sb(III) and further to Sb(V), and determined the effect of variations in the aqueous matrix composition (simulated ground water). We also tested whether the addition of common cations (Na (super +) and Ca (super 2+) ) at different concentrations has an effect on the rate of the oxidation reaction in homogeneous oxic systems with Sb(III). To test which oxidized Sb solid phase could potentially limit the mobility of Sb in the studied systems, we characterized the partially oxidized Sb(0) by means of X-ray absorption fine structure spectroscopy (XAFS). Metallic Sb is mobilized readily through oxidation to Sb(III) and Sb(V) and dissolution. The amount of dissolved Sb and rate of Sb(III) oxidation to Sb(V) in deionized (DI) water was lower compared to the simulated ground water systems. This finding is confirmed by XAFS measurements--the fraction of oxidized Sb in the partially oxidized Sb(0) samples is higher in system with simulated ground water compared to the DI water. We found that in the presence of the common cations Na (super +) and Ca (super 2+) , the rate of Sb(III) oxidation increases with increasing ionic strength. These results suggest that shooting range soils with pore waters characterized by high ionic strength can promote oxidation and mobilization of antimony. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Ilgen, Anastasia AU - Majs, Frantisek AU - Barker, Amanda AU - Douglas, Thomas AU - Trainor, Thomas P AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2011/10// PY - 2011 DA - October 2011 SP - 345 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 43 IS - 5 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - soils KW - controls KW - antimony KW - soil pollution KW - pollutants KW - metals KW - oxidation KW - pollution KW - water pollution KW - simulation KW - ground water KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1328504920?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Controls+on+oxidation+and+mobilization+of+metallic+antimony+in+aqueous+systems+with+simulated+ground+water&rft.au=Ilgen%2C+Anastasia%3BMajs%2C+Frantisek%3BBarker%2C+Amanda%3BDouglas%2C+Thomas%3BTrainor%2C+Thomas+P%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Ilgen&rft.aufirst=Anastasia&rft.date=2011-10-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=345&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geological Society of America, 2011 annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2013, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2013-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2013-04-19 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - antimony; controls; ground water; metals; oxidation; pollutants; pollution; simulation; soil pollution; soils; water pollution ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Distinguishing bed-load and bed-material-load fluxes with repeat bathymetric data AN - 1328502365; 2013-032936 AB - Quantitative understanding of bed-load and bed-material-load fluxes in sandy rivers would afford greater understanding and prediction of channel form, river behavior, and habitats of river corridor biota. However, practical difficulties and cost ineffectiveness often exclude bed-sediment measurements from studies and monitoring efforts aimed at estimating sediment loads in rivers. An alternative to direct sampling is through the measurement of evolution of bed topography constrained by sediment-mass conservation. Historically, the topographic-evolution approach has been limited to systems with negligible transport of sand in suspension. We show that by loosening the constraint on mass conservation (that is, allowing divergence of sediment flux to vary temporally when averaged over a bed form length) bed load and bed-material load can be distinguished by their effects on the evolution of bed topography. As was shown decades ago, pure bed load transport is responsible for the mean migration of trains of bed forms when no sediment is exchanged between individual bed forms. In contrast, the component of bed-material load that moves in suspension is responsible for changes in the size, shape, and spacing of evolving bed forms; collectively this is called deformation. The sum of the effects of deformation and translation on bed topography reflects the total movement of bed material. Similarly, the difference between bed-load flux and bed-material-load flux equals the flux of suspended bed material. This approach is demonstrated using a set of repeat multibeam sonar bathymetric surveys coupled with point-integrated suspended-sediment profiles and acoustic Doppler velocimetry. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - McElroy, Brandon AU - Abraham, David AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2011/10// PY - 2011 DA - October 2011 SP - 373 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 43 IS - 5 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - processes KW - bedload KW - stream transport KW - transport KW - sediment transport KW - sampling KW - quantitative analysis KW - geomorphology KW - bathymetry KW - measurement KW - 23:Geomorphology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1328502365?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Distinguishing+bed-load+and+bed-material-load+fluxes+with+repeat+bathymetric+data&rft.au=McElroy%2C+Brandon%3BAbraham%2C+David%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=McElroy&rft.aufirst=Brandon&rft.date=2011-10-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=373&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geological Society of America, 2011 annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2013, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2013-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2013-04-19 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - bathymetry; bedload; geomorphology; measurement; processes; quantitative analysis; sampling; sediment transport; stream transport; transport ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY (DBOC) SPECIAL USE PERMIT, POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 7] T2 - DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY (DBOC) SPECIAL USE PERMIT, POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 909287729; 15086-8_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The continued authorization of the Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC) shellfish operation, which consists of commercial production, harvesting, processing, and sale of shellfish at Point Reyes National Seashore, California is proposed. The Seashore is located in western Marin County in central California, 40 miles northwest of San Francisco. The existing reservation of use and occupancy and associated special use permit (SUP) held by DBOC will expire on November 30, 2012. The company's operations occur on uplands adjacent to Drakes Estero and within Drakes Estero itself. All of the upland, tidal, and subtidal lands on which DBOC conducts its operations are owned in fee by the United States. Drakes Estero is a system of five branching bays encompassing 2,500 acres and separated by low converging ridges. From west to east, they are: Barries Bay, Creamery Bay, Schooner Bay, Home Bay, and Estero de Limantour. The 1,700-acre project area includes DBOC facilities and operations in congressionally-designated potential wilderness (1,363 acres), 2.6 acres of onshore property, and two acres incorporating the well and septic areas. The project area also includes a kayak launch parking area and an access road leading from Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. All land and water portions of the project area are owned by the National Park Service. This draft EIS explores four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) under which existing authorizations would expire and conversion of Drakes Estero to full wilderness would ensue. Under the three action alternatives, a new 10-year SUP would be issued for commercial oyster operations in Drakes Estero through November 30, 2022. The action alternatives would involve differing levels of onshore facilities and infrastructure and offshore operations. Alternative B would allow existing onshore facilities and infrastructure and offshore operations for a period of 10 years. Alternative C would allow a level of use that is consistent with the conditions and operations that existed at the time the current SUP was signed in April 2008. Alternative D considers expansion of operations and development of new infrastructure as requested by DBOC. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new SUP would allow DBOC to cultivate and produce 500,000 to 850,000 pounds annually of shellfish including Pacific oysters, European flat oysters, Manila clams, and purple-hinged rock scallops. DBOC would be required to pay fair market value for the use of federal property, which includes onshore and offshore areas within the permit boundaries. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Offshore infrastructure and operations would continue on 138 or more acres of intertidal wetlands, resulting in long-term impacts on estuarine subtidal and intertidal systems due to bottom bags, cluster culture for shell hardening, and anchors for bag lines lying on the bottom substrate. Operation of boats and barges would continue to disturb sediment and impact sandbars and mudflats. Propeller damage to subtidal and intertidal aquatic eelgrass beds could occur. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law (PL) 111-88. JF - EPA number: 110328, 722 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Bays KW - Estuaries KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness Management KW - California KW - Point Reyes National Seashore KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law (PL) 111-88, Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287729?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DRAKES+BAY+OYSTER+COMPANY+%28DBOC%29+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=DRAKES+BAY+OYSTER+COMPANY+%28DBOC%29+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Point Reyes Station, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY (DBOC) SPECIAL USE PERMIT, POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 7] T2 - DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY (DBOC) SPECIAL USE PERMIT, POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 909287727; 15086-8_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The continued authorization of the Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC) shellfish operation, which consists of commercial production, harvesting, processing, and sale of shellfish at Point Reyes National Seashore, California is proposed. The Seashore is located in western Marin County in central California, 40 miles northwest of San Francisco. The existing reservation of use and occupancy and associated special use permit (SUP) held by DBOC will expire on November 30, 2012. The company's operations occur on uplands adjacent to Drakes Estero and within Drakes Estero itself. All of the upland, tidal, and subtidal lands on which DBOC conducts its operations are owned in fee by the United States. Drakes Estero is a system of five branching bays encompassing 2,500 acres and separated by low converging ridges. From west to east, they are: Barries Bay, Creamery Bay, Schooner Bay, Home Bay, and Estero de Limantour. The 1,700-acre project area includes DBOC facilities and operations in congressionally-designated potential wilderness (1,363 acres), 2.6 acres of onshore property, and two acres incorporating the well and septic areas. The project area also includes a kayak launch parking area and an access road leading from Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. All land and water portions of the project area are owned by the National Park Service. This draft EIS explores four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) under which existing authorizations would expire and conversion of Drakes Estero to full wilderness would ensue. Under the three action alternatives, a new 10-year SUP would be issued for commercial oyster operations in Drakes Estero through November 30, 2022. The action alternatives would involve differing levels of onshore facilities and infrastructure and offshore operations. Alternative B would allow existing onshore facilities and infrastructure and offshore operations for a period of 10 years. Alternative C would allow a level of use that is consistent with the conditions and operations that existed at the time the current SUP was signed in April 2008. Alternative D considers expansion of operations and development of new infrastructure as requested by DBOC. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new SUP would allow DBOC to cultivate and produce 500,000 to 850,000 pounds annually of shellfish including Pacific oysters, European flat oysters, Manila clams, and purple-hinged rock scallops. DBOC would be required to pay fair market value for the use of federal property, which includes onshore and offshore areas within the permit boundaries. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Offshore infrastructure and operations would continue on 138 or more acres of intertidal wetlands, resulting in long-term impacts on estuarine subtidal and intertidal systems due to bottom bags, cluster culture for shell hardening, and anchors for bag lines lying on the bottom substrate. Operation of boats and barges would continue to disturb sediment and impact sandbars and mudflats. Propeller damage to subtidal and intertidal aquatic eelgrass beds could occur. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law (PL) 111-88. JF - EPA number: 110328, 722 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Bays KW - Estuaries KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness Management KW - California KW - Point Reyes National Seashore KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law (PL) 111-88, Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287727?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DRAKES+BAY+OYSTER+COMPANY+%28DBOC%29+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=DRAKES+BAY+OYSTER+COMPANY+%28DBOC%29+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Point Reyes Station, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY (DBOC) SPECIAL USE PERMIT, POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 7] T2 - DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY (DBOC) SPECIAL USE PERMIT, POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 909287722; 15086-8_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The continued authorization of the Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC) shellfish operation, which consists of commercial production, harvesting, processing, and sale of shellfish at Point Reyes National Seashore, California is proposed. The Seashore is located in western Marin County in central California, 40 miles northwest of San Francisco. The existing reservation of use and occupancy and associated special use permit (SUP) held by DBOC will expire on November 30, 2012. The company's operations occur on uplands adjacent to Drakes Estero and within Drakes Estero itself. All of the upland, tidal, and subtidal lands on which DBOC conducts its operations are owned in fee by the United States. Drakes Estero is a system of five branching bays encompassing 2,500 acres and separated by low converging ridges. From west to east, they are: Barries Bay, Creamery Bay, Schooner Bay, Home Bay, and Estero de Limantour. The 1,700-acre project area includes DBOC facilities and operations in congressionally-designated potential wilderness (1,363 acres), 2.6 acres of onshore property, and two acres incorporating the well and septic areas. The project area also includes a kayak launch parking area and an access road leading from Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. All land and water portions of the project area are owned by the National Park Service. This draft EIS explores four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) under which existing authorizations would expire and conversion of Drakes Estero to full wilderness would ensue. Under the three action alternatives, a new 10-year SUP would be issued for commercial oyster operations in Drakes Estero through November 30, 2022. The action alternatives would involve differing levels of onshore facilities and infrastructure and offshore operations. Alternative B would allow existing onshore facilities and infrastructure and offshore operations for a period of 10 years. Alternative C would allow a level of use that is consistent with the conditions and operations that existed at the time the current SUP was signed in April 2008. Alternative D considers expansion of operations and development of new infrastructure as requested by DBOC. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new SUP would allow DBOC to cultivate and produce 500,000 to 850,000 pounds annually of shellfish including Pacific oysters, European flat oysters, Manila clams, and purple-hinged rock scallops. DBOC would be required to pay fair market value for the use of federal property, which includes onshore and offshore areas within the permit boundaries. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Offshore infrastructure and operations would continue on 138 or more acres of intertidal wetlands, resulting in long-term impacts on estuarine subtidal and intertidal systems due to bottom bags, cluster culture for shell hardening, and anchors for bag lines lying on the bottom substrate. Operation of boats and barges would continue to disturb sediment and impact sandbars and mudflats. Propeller damage to subtidal and intertidal aquatic eelgrass beds could occur. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law (PL) 111-88. JF - EPA number: 110328, 722 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Bays KW - Estuaries KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness Management KW - California KW - Point Reyes National Seashore KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law (PL) 111-88, Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287722?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DRAKES+BAY+OYSTER+COMPANY+%28DBOC%29+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=DRAKES+BAY+OYSTER+COMPANY+%28DBOC%29+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Point Reyes Station, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY (DBOC) SPECIAL USE PERMIT, POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 7] T2 - DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY (DBOC) SPECIAL USE PERMIT, POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 909287718; 15086-8_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The continued authorization of the Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC) shellfish operation, which consists of commercial production, harvesting, processing, and sale of shellfish at Point Reyes National Seashore, California is proposed. The Seashore is located in western Marin County in central California, 40 miles northwest of San Francisco. The existing reservation of use and occupancy and associated special use permit (SUP) held by DBOC will expire on November 30, 2012. The company's operations occur on uplands adjacent to Drakes Estero and within Drakes Estero itself. All of the upland, tidal, and subtidal lands on which DBOC conducts its operations are owned in fee by the United States. Drakes Estero is a system of five branching bays encompassing 2,500 acres and separated by low converging ridges. From west to east, they are: Barries Bay, Creamery Bay, Schooner Bay, Home Bay, and Estero de Limantour. The 1,700-acre project area includes DBOC facilities and operations in congressionally-designated potential wilderness (1,363 acres), 2.6 acres of onshore property, and two acres incorporating the well and septic areas. The project area also includes a kayak launch parking area and an access road leading from Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. All land and water portions of the project area are owned by the National Park Service. This draft EIS explores four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) under which existing authorizations would expire and conversion of Drakes Estero to full wilderness would ensue. Under the three action alternatives, a new 10-year SUP would be issued for commercial oyster operations in Drakes Estero through November 30, 2022. The action alternatives would involve differing levels of onshore facilities and infrastructure and offshore operations. Alternative B would allow existing onshore facilities and infrastructure and offshore operations for a period of 10 years. Alternative C would allow a level of use that is consistent with the conditions and operations that existed at the time the current SUP was signed in April 2008. Alternative D considers expansion of operations and development of new infrastructure as requested by DBOC. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new SUP would allow DBOC to cultivate and produce 500,000 to 850,000 pounds annually of shellfish including Pacific oysters, European flat oysters, Manila clams, and purple-hinged rock scallops. DBOC would be required to pay fair market value for the use of federal property, which includes onshore and offshore areas within the permit boundaries. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Offshore infrastructure and operations would continue on 138 or more acres of intertidal wetlands, resulting in long-term impacts on estuarine subtidal and intertidal systems due to bottom bags, cluster culture for shell hardening, and anchors for bag lines lying on the bottom substrate. Operation of boats and barges would continue to disturb sediment and impact sandbars and mudflats. Propeller damage to subtidal and intertidal aquatic eelgrass beds could occur. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law (PL) 111-88. JF - EPA number: 110328, 722 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Bays KW - Estuaries KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness Management KW - California KW - Point Reyes National Seashore KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law (PL) 111-88, Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287718?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DRAKES+BAY+OYSTER+COMPANY+%28DBOC%29+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=DRAKES+BAY+OYSTER+COMPANY+%28DBOC%29+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Point Reyes Station, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY (DBOC) SPECIAL USE PERMIT, POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 7] T2 - DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY (DBOC) SPECIAL USE PERMIT, POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 909287715; 15086-8_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The continued authorization of the Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC) shellfish operation, which consists of commercial production, harvesting, processing, and sale of shellfish at Point Reyes National Seashore, California is proposed. The Seashore is located in western Marin County in central California, 40 miles northwest of San Francisco. The existing reservation of use and occupancy and associated special use permit (SUP) held by DBOC will expire on November 30, 2012. The company's operations occur on uplands adjacent to Drakes Estero and within Drakes Estero itself. All of the upland, tidal, and subtidal lands on which DBOC conducts its operations are owned in fee by the United States. Drakes Estero is a system of five branching bays encompassing 2,500 acres and separated by low converging ridges. From west to east, they are: Barries Bay, Creamery Bay, Schooner Bay, Home Bay, and Estero de Limantour. The 1,700-acre project area includes DBOC facilities and operations in congressionally-designated potential wilderness (1,363 acres), 2.6 acres of onshore property, and two acres incorporating the well and septic areas. The project area also includes a kayak launch parking area and an access road leading from Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. All land and water portions of the project area are owned by the National Park Service. This draft EIS explores four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) under which existing authorizations would expire and conversion of Drakes Estero to full wilderness would ensue. Under the three action alternatives, a new 10-year SUP would be issued for commercial oyster operations in Drakes Estero through November 30, 2022. The action alternatives would involve differing levels of onshore facilities and infrastructure and offshore operations. Alternative B would allow existing onshore facilities and infrastructure and offshore operations for a period of 10 years. Alternative C would allow a level of use that is consistent with the conditions and operations that existed at the time the current SUP was signed in April 2008. Alternative D considers expansion of operations and development of new infrastructure as requested by DBOC. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new SUP would allow DBOC to cultivate and produce 500,000 to 850,000 pounds annually of shellfish including Pacific oysters, European flat oysters, Manila clams, and purple-hinged rock scallops. DBOC would be required to pay fair market value for the use of federal property, which includes onshore and offshore areas within the permit boundaries. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Offshore infrastructure and operations would continue on 138 or more acres of intertidal wetlands, resulting in long-term impacts on estuarine subtidal and intertidal systems due to bottom bags, cluster culture for shell hardening, and anchors for bag lines lying on the bottom substrate. Operation of boats and barges would continue to disturb sediment and impact sandbars and mudflats. Propeller damage to subtidal and intertidal aquatic eelgrass beds could occur. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law (PL) 111-88. JF - EPA number: 110328, 722 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Bays KW - Estuaries KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness Management KW - California KW - Point Reyes National Seashore KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law (PL) 111-88, Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287715?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=Lisa&rft.date=2010-07-01&rft.volume=4&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=479&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Research+in+Autism+Spectrum+Disorders&rft.issn=17509467&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.rasd.2009.11.005 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Point Reyes Station, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY (DBOC) SPECIAL USE PERMIT, POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 7] T2 - DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY (DBOC) SPECIAL USE PERMIT, POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 909287711; 15086-8_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The continued authorization of the Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC) shellfish operation, which consists of commercial production, harvesting, processing, and sale of shellfish at Point Reyes National Seashore, California is proposed. The Seashore is located in western Marin County in central California, 40 miles northwest of San Francisco. The existing reservation of use and occupancy and associated special use permit (SUP) held by DBOC will expire on November 30, 2012. The company's operations occur on uplands adjacent to Drakes Estero and within Drakes Estero itself. All of the upland, tidal, and subtidal lands on which DBOC conducts its operations are owned in fee by the United States. Drakes Estero is a system of five branching bays encompassing 2,500 acres and separated by low converging ridges. From west to east, they are: Barries Bay, Creamery Bay, Schooner Bay, Home Bay, and Estero de Limantour. The 1,700-acre project area includes DBOC facilities and operations in congressionally-designated potential wilderness (1,363 acres), 2.6 acres of onshore property, and two acres incorporating the well and septic areas. The project area also includes a kayak launch parking area and an access road leading from Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. All land and water portions of the project area are owned by the National Park Service. This draft EIS explores four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) under which existing authorizations would expire and conversion of Drakes Estero to full wilderness would ensue. Under the three action alternatives, a new 10-year SUP would be issued for commercial oyster operations in Drakes Estero through November 30, 2022. The action alternatives would involve differing levels of onshore facilities and infrastructure and offshore operations. Alternative B would allow existing onshore facilities and infrastructure and offshore operations for a period of 10 years. Alternative C would allow a level of use that is consistent with the conditions and operations that existed at the time the current SUP was signed in April 2008. Alternative D considers expansion of operations and development of new infrastructure as requested by DBOC. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new SUP would allow DBOC to cultivate and produce 500,000 to 850,000 pounds annually of shellfish including Pacific oysters, European flat oysters, Manila clams, and purple-hinged rock scallops. DBOC would be required to pay fair market value for the use of federal property, which includes onshore and offshore areas within the permit boundaries. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Offshore infrastructure and operations would continue on 138 or more acres of intertidal wetlands, resulting in long-term impacts on estuarine subtidal and intertidal systems due to bottom bags, cluster culture for shell hardening, and anchors for bag lines lying on the bottom substrate. Operation of boats and barges would continue to disturb sediment and impact sandbars and mudflats. Propeller damage to subtidal and intertidal aquatic eelgrass beds could occur. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law (PL) 111-88. JF - EPA number: 110328, 722 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Bays KW - Estuaries KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness Management KW - California KW - Point Reyes National Seashore KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law (PL) 111-88, Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287711?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DRAKES+BAY+OYSTER+COMPANY+%28DBOC%29+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=DRAKES+BAY+OYSTER+COMPANY+%28DBOC%29+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Point Reyes Station, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY (DBOC) SPECIAL USE PERMIT, POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 7] T2 - DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY (DBOC) SPECIAL USE PERMIT, POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 909287710; 15086-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The continued authorization of the Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC) shellfish operation, which consists of commercial production, harvesting, processing, and sale of shellfish at Point Reyes National Seashore, California is proposed. The Seashore is located in western Marin County in central California, 40 miles northwest of San Francisco. The existing reservation of use and occupancy and associated special use permit (SUP) held by DBOC will expire on November 30, 2012. The company's operations occur on uplands adjacent to Drakes Estero and within Drakes Estero itself. All of the upland, tidal, and subtidal lands on which DBOC conducts its operations are owned in fee by the United States. Drakes Estero is a system of five branching bays encompassing 2,500 acres and separated by low converging ridges. From west to east, they are: Barries Bay, Creamery Bay, Schooner Bay, Home Bay, and Estero de Limantour. The 1,700-acre project area includes DBOC facilities and operations in congressionally-designated potential wilderness (1,363 acres), 2.6 acres of onshore property, and two acres incorporating the well and septic areas. The project area also includes a kayak launch parking area and an access road leading from Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. All land and water portions of the project area are owned by the National Park Service. This draft EIS explores four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) under which existing authorizations would expire and conversion of Drakes Estero to full wilderness would ensue. Under the three action alternatives, a new 10-year SUP would be issued for commercial oyster operations in Drakes Estero through November 30, 2022. The action alternatives would involve differing levels of onshore facilities and infrastructure and offshore operations. Alternative B would allow existing onshore facilities and infrastructure and offshore operations for a period of 10 years. Alternative C would allow a level of use that is consistent with the conditions and operations that existed at the time the current SUP was signed in April 2008. Alternative D considers expansion of operations and development of new infrastructure as requested by DBOC. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new SUP would allow DBOC to cultivate and produce 500,000 to 850,000 pounds annually of shellfish including Pacific oysters, European flat oysters, Manila clams, and purple-hinged rock scallops. DBOC would be required to pay fair market value for the use of federal property, which includes onshore and offshore areas within the permit boundaries. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Offshore infrastructure and operations would continue on 138 or more acres of intertidal wetlands, resulting in long-term impacts on estuarine subtidal and intertidal systems due to bottom bags, cluster culture for shell hardening, and anchors for bag lines lying on the bottom substrate. Operation of boats and barges would continue to disturb sediment and impact sandbars and mudflats. Propeller damage to subtidal and intertidal aquatic eelgrass beds could occur. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law (PL) 111-88. JF - EPA number: 110328, 722 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Bays KW - Estuaries KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness Management KW - California KW - Point Reyes National Seashore KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law (PL) 111-88, Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287710?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DRAKES+BAY+OYSTER+COMPANY+%28DBOC%29+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=DRAKES+BAY+OYSTER+COMPANY+%28DBOC%29+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Point Reyes Station, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-69 CORRIDOR, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY NO. 14, JUNCTION I-20 NEAR HAUGHTON, LOUISIANA TO US 82 NEAR EL DORADO, ARKANSAS, BOSSIER, CLAIBORNE, AND WEBSTER PARISHES, LOUISIANA AND COLUMBIA AND UNION COUNTIES, ARKANSAS. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - I-69 CORRIDOR, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY NO. 14, JUNCTION I-20 NEAR HAUGHTON, LOUISIANA TO US 82 NEAR EL DORADO, ARKANSAS, BOSSIER, CLAIBORNE, AND WEBSTER PARISHES, LOUISIANA AND COLUMBIA AND UNION COUNTIES, ARKANSAS. AN - 909287709; 15083-5_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane, divided, fully-controlled access freeway within the Interstate 69 (I-69) Corridor between Shreveport, Louisiana and El Dorado, Arkansas is proposed. The freeway would extend approximately 62 miles from the junction of I-20 in Haughton, Louisiana near Shreveport and US 82 near El Dorado. This section of I-69 between Haughton and El Dorado is only one of many sections of the national I-69 Corridor connecting Port Huron, Michigan, to the border between Texas and Mexico. Each section has been identified as having a local benefit that it would serve beyond providing a vital link in the national I-69 route. The section in question is identified as Section of Independent Utility No. 14 (SIU 14). Eight build alternatives and a No Build Alternative were considered in the draft EIS of March 2005 and this final EIS identifies Alternative 4, Option 3 as the preferred alternative. Access to the freeway would be controlled via 20 grade separation structures, and three railroad crossings would be provided. Alignment revisions between I-20 and just east of LA 3008 and Bayou Dorcheat would avoid impacts to a community and address the connection with the termini of SIU 15 to the south. The total cost of implementing the project is estimated at $640.4 million in Louisiana and $389 million in Arkansas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new freeway would complete the I-69 trade corridor and would boost regional economic development. Connectivity and accessibility within and between Arkansas and Louisiana communities would be improved, enhancing the National Highway System. The potential for accidents on the existing highway system would be reduced significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development of 3,267 acres would result in displacement of nine residences, 1,877 acres of pine plantation, 971 acres of naturally wooded land, 94 acres of farmland, 338 acres of cleared land, 38 acres of urban land, six acres of streams, 304 acres of floodplain, and 109.7 acres of wetlands. The project would traverse 26 acres of the Sparta aquifer recharge area and 357 acres of the Chicot Terrace aquifer and encroach on 750 acres of potential habitat for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 51 residences. Scenic use of Bayou Dorcheat would be adversely affected. Construction workers would encounter nine hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0629D, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110325, Final EIS--760 pages and maps, Additional Appendices--CD-ROM, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-05-01-F KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Scenic Areas KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287709?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-69+CORRIDOR%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NO.+14%2C+JUNCTION+I-20+NEAR+HAUGHTON%2C+LOUISIANA+TO+US+82+NEAR+EL+DORADO%2C+ARKANSAS%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CLAIBORNE%2C+AND+WEBSTER+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+COLUMBIA+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.title=I-69+CORRIDOR%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NO.+14%2C+JUNCTION+I-20+NEAR+HAUGHTON%2C+LOUISIANA+TO+US+82+NEAR+EL+DORADO%2C+ARKANSAS%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CLAIBORNE%2C+AND+WEBSTER+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+COLUMBIA+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-69 CORRIDOR, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY NO. 14, JUNCTION I-20 NEAR HAUGHTON, LOUISIANA TO US 82 NEAR EL DORADO, ARKANSAS, BOSSIER, CLAIBORNE, AND WEBSTER PARISHES, LOUISIANA AND COLUMBIA AND UNION COUNTIES, ARKANSAS. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - I-69 CORRIDOR, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY NO. 14, JUNCTION I-20 NEAR HAUGHTON, LOUISIANA TO US 82 NEAR EL DORADO, ARKANSAS, BOSSIER, CLAIBORNE, AND WEBSTER PARISHES, LOUISIANA AND COLUMBIA AND UNION COUNTIES, ARKANSAS. AN - 909287704; 15083-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane, divided, fully-controlled access freeway within the Interstate 69 (I-69) Corridor between Shreveport, Louisiana and El Dorado, Arkansas is proposed. The freeway would extend approximately 62 miles from the junction of I-20 in Haughton, Louisiana near Shreveport and US 82 near El Dorado. This section of I-69 between Haughton and El Dorado is only one of many sections of the national I-69 Corridor connecting Port Huron, Michigan, to the border between Texas and Mexico. Each section has been identified as having a local benefit that it would serve beyond providing a vital link in the national I-69 route. The section in question is identified as Section of Independent Utility No. 14 (SIU 14). Eight build alternatives and a No Build Alternative were considered in the draft EIS of March 2005 and this final EIS identifies Alternative 4, Option 3 as the preferred alternative. Access to the freeway would be controlled via 20 grade separation structures, and three railroad crossings would be provided. Alignment revisions between I-20 and just east of LA 3008 and Bayou Dorcheat would avoid impacts to a community and address the connection with the termini of SIU 15 to the south. The total cost of implementing the project is estimated at $640.4 million in Louisiana and $389 million in Arkansas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new freeway would complete the I-69 trade corridor and would boost regional economic development. Connectivity and accessibility within and between Arkansas and Louisiana communities would be improved, enhancing the National Highway System. The potential for accidents on the existing highway system would be reduced significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development of 3,267 acres would result in displacement of nine residences, 1,877 acres of pine plantation, 971 acres of naturally wooded land, 94 acres of farmland, 338 acres of cleared land, 38 acres of urban land, six acres of streams, 304 acres of floodplain, and 109.7 acres of wetlands. The project would traverse 26 acres of the Sparta aquifer recharge area and 357 acres of the Chicot Terrace aquifer and encroach on 750 acres of potential habitat for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 51 residences. Scenic use of Bayou Dorcheat would be adversely affected. Construction workers would encounter nine hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0629D, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110325, Final EIS--760 pages and maps, Additional Appendices--CD-ROM, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-05-01-F KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Scenic Areas KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287704?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-69+CORRIDOR%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NO.+14%2C+JUNCTION+I-20+NEAR+HAUGHTON%2C+LOUISIANA+TO+US+82+NEAR+EL+DORADO%2C+ARKANSAS%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CLAIBORNE%2C+AND+WEBSTER+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+COLUMBIA+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.title=I-69+CORRIDOR%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NO.+14%2C+JUNCTION+I-20+NEAR+HAUGHTON%2C+LOUISIANA+TO+US+82+NEAR+EL+DORADO%2C+ARKANSAS%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CLAIBORNE%2C+AND+WEBSTER+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+COLUMBIA+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 70 HAVELOCK BYPASS, CRAVEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - US 70 HAVELOCK BYPASS, CRAVEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 909287694; 15087-9_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 10-mile, four-lane divided, controlled-access freeway on new location for US 70 around the southwest side of the city of Havelock and the Cherry Point U.S. Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS), Craven County, North Carolina is proposed. US 70 is an important intrastate corridor link between Raleigh and Morehead City and is also the principal highway access for the coastal beaches in Carteret County and provides essential traffic service during hurricane evacuations. The current section of US 70 through Havelock is an urban arterial with numerous signalized intersections and access points at public streets and private driveways. The Cherry Point MCAS is located on the northeast side of Havelock and covers more than 12,000 acres at its primary complex. Much of the region southwest of Havelock is part of the 159,886-acre Croatan National Forest (CNF). Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 was developed to minimize impacts to existing development and Alternative 2 was developed to minimize impacts to the natural areas in the CNF. Alternative 3 is the preferred alternative and would balance impacts by locating the new facility adjacent to an existing cleared power transmission line easement. At the southeastern terminus, the alternatives would interchange with existing US 70 southeast of State Route 1824 (SR 1824). At the northwestern terminus, the alternatives would interchange with existing US 70 just west of SR 1760. The proposed bypass would cross Tucker Creek 4,400 feet south of the North Carolina Railroad and then turn east and continue 6,000 feet to a CNF access road. Under Alternative 3, the corridor would turn southwest 2,600 feet southeast of the CNF access road crossing and continue along the eastern side of a transmission line easement to a grade separation at SR 1747. Southeast of SR 1747, the corridor would cross over the southwest prong of Slocum Creek and then turn back to the southeast to the interchange with SR 1756. Bridges are proposed to cross over the southwest and the east prongs of Slocum Creek. Total cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $163 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The US 70 Havelock Bypass would allow both commercial carriers and vacationers a means to avoid the traffic signals and the congestion along existing US 70. Construction would fulfill the recommendation in the Strategic Highway Corridors Plan for a freeway and likely create substantial economic benefits for the regional and local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way requirements for Alternative 3 would impact 115 acres of wetlands, 2,505 linear feet of streams, and 71 acres of prime farmland. Habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker and other species within the CNF would be affected. Mitigation would include the transfer of the adjacent Croatan Wetland Mitigation Bank property to the Forest Service. The proposed bypass would cross three major streams and require relocation of 16 residences, one business, and one church. A total of 30 residential receptors are predicted to approach or exceed noise abatement criteria. 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: 110329, 590 pages and maps, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Noise KW - Transportation KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station KW - Croatan National Forest KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287694?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+70+HAVELOCK+BYPASS%2C+CRAVEN+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=US+70+HAVELOCK+BYPASS%2C+CRAVEN+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 70 HAVELOCK BYPASS, CRAVEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 907027122; 15087 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 10-mile, four-lane divided, controlled-access freeway on new location for US 70 around the southwest side of the city of Havelock and the Cherry Point U.S. Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS), Craven County, North Carolina is proposed. US 70 is an important intrastate corridor link between Raleigh and Morehead City and is also the principal highway access for the coastal beaches in Carteret County and provides essential traffic service during hurricane evacuations. The current section of US 70 through Havelock is an urban arterial with numerous signalized intersections and access points at public streets and private driveways. The Cherry Point MCAS is located on the northeast side of Havelock and covers more than 12,000 acres at its primary complex. Much of the region southwest of Havelock is part of the 159,886-acre Croatan National Forest (CNF). Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 was developed to minimize impacts to existing development and Alternative 2 was developed to minimize impacts to the natural areas in the CNF. Alternative 3 is the preferred alternative and would balance impacts by locating the new facility adjacent to an existing cleared power transmission line easement. At the southeastern terminus, the alternatives would interchange with existing US 70 southeast of State Route 1824 (SR 1824). At the northwestern terminus, the alternatives would interchange with existing US 70 just west of SR 1760. The proposed bypass would cross Tucker Creek 4,400 feet south of the North Carolina Railroad and then turn east and continue 6,000 feet to a CNF access road. Under Alternative 3, the corridor would turn southwest 2,600 feet southeast of the CNF access road crossing and continue along the eastern side of a transmission line easement to a grade separation at SR 1747. Southeast of SR 1747, the corridor would cross over the southwest prong of Slocum Creek and then turn back to the southeast to the interchange with SR 1756. Bridges are proposed to cross over the southwest and the east prongs of Slocum Creek. Total cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $163 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The US 70 Havelock Bypass would allow both commercial carriers and vacationers a means to avoid the traffic signals and the congestion along existing US 70. Construction would fulfill the recommendation in the Strategic Highway Corridors Plan for a freeway and likely create substantial economic benefits for the regional and local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way requirements for Alternative 3 would impact 115 acres of wetlands, 2,505 linear feet of streams, and 71 acres of prime farmland. Habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker and other species within the CNF would be affected. Mitigation would include the transfer of the adjacent Croatan Wetland Mitigation Bank property to the Forest Service. The proposed bypass would cross three major streams and require relocation of 16 residences, one business, and one church. A total of 30 residential receptors are predicted to approach or exceed noise abatement criteria. 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: 110329, 590 pages and maps, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Noise KW - Transportation KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station KW - Croatan National Forest KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/907027122?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3A&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Education+and+Training+in+Autism+and+Developmental+Disabilities&rft.atitle=Enabling+a+prelinguistic+communicator+with+autism+to+use+picture+card+as+a+strategy+for+repairing+listener+misunderstandings%3A+A+case+study&rft.au=Ohtake%2C+Yoshihisa%3BWehmeyer%2C+Michael%3BUchida%2C+Naomi%3BNakaya%2C+Akitaka%3BYanagihara%2C+Masafumi&rft.aulast=Ohtake&rft.aufirst=Yoshihisa&rft.date=2010-09-01&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=410&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Education+and+Training+in+Autism+and+Developmental+Disabilities&rft.issn=21541647&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-69 CORRIDOR, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY NO. 14, JUNCTION I-20 NEAR HAUGHTON, LOUISIANA TO US 82 NEAR EL DORADO, ARKANSAS, BOSSIER, CLAIBORNE, AND WEBSTER PARISHES, LOUISIANA AND COLUMBIA AND UNION COUNTIES, ARKANSAS. AN - 907022518; 15083 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane, divided, fully-controlled access freeway within the Interstate 69 (I-69) Corridor between Shreveport, Louisiana and El Dorado, Arkansas is proposed. The freeway would extend approximately 62 miles from the junction of I-20 in Haughton, Louisiana near Shreveport and US 82 near El Dorado. This section of I-69 between Haughton and El Dorado is only one of many sections of the national I-69 Corridor connecting Port Huron, Michigan, to the border between Texas and Mexico. Each section has been identified as having a local benefit that it would serve beyond providing a vital link in the national I-69 route. The section in question is identified as Section of Independent Utility No. 14 (SIU 14). Eight build alternatives and a No Build Alternative were considered in the draft EIS of March 2005 and this final EIS identifies Alternative 4, Option 3 as the preferred alternative. Access to the freeway would be controlled via 20 grade separation structures, and three railroad crossings would be provided. Alignment revisions between I-20 and just east of LA 3008 and Bayou Dorcheat would avoid impacts to a community and address the connection with the termini of SIU 15 to the south. The total cost of implementing the project is estimated at $640.4 million in Louisiana and $389 million in Arkansas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new freeway would complete the I-69 trade corridor and would boost regional economic development. Connectivity and accessibility within and between Arkansas and Louisiana communities would be improved, enhancing the National Highway System. The potential for accidents on the existing highway system would be reduced significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development of 3,267 acres would result in displacement of nine residences, 1,877 acres of pine plantation, 971 acres of naturally wooded land, 94 acres of farmland, 338 acres of cleared land, 38 acres of urban land, six acres of streams, 304 acres of floodplain, and 109.7 acres of wetlands. The project would traverse 26 acres of the Sparta aquifer recharge area and 357 acres of the Chicot Terrace aquifer and encroach on 750 acres of potential habitat for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 51 residences. Scenic use of Bayou Dorcheat would be adversely affected. Construction workers would encounter nine hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0629D, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110325, Final EIS--760 pages and maps, Additional Appendices--CD-ROM, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-05-01-F KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Scenic Areas KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/907022518?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-69+CORRIDOR%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NO.+14%2C+JUNCTION+I-20+NEAR+HAUGHTON%2C+LOUISIANA+TO+US+82+NEAR+EL+DORADO%2C+ARKANSAS%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CLAIBORNE%2C+AND+WEBSTER+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+COLUMBIA+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.title=I-69+CORRIDOR%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NO.+14%2C+JUNCTION+I-20+NEAR+HAUGHTON%2C+LOUISIANA+TO+US+82+NEAR+EL+DORADO%2C+ARKANSAS%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CLAIBORNE%2C+AND+WEBSTER+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+COLUMBIA+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY (DBOC) SPECIAL USE PERMIT, POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16377411; 15086 AB - PURPOSE: The continued authorization of the Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC) shellfish operation, which consists of commercial production, harvesting, processing, and sale of shellfish at Point Reyes National Seashore, California is proposed. The Seashore is located in western Marin County in central California, 40 miles northwest of San Francisco. The existing reservation of use and occupancy and associated special use permit (SUP) held by DBOC will expire on November 30, 2012. The company's operations occur on uplands adjacent to Drakes Estero and within Drakes Estero itself. All of the upland, tidal, and subtidal lands on which DBOC conducts its operations are owned in fee by the United States. Drakes Estero is a system of five branching bays encompassing 2,500 acres and separated by low converging ridges. From west to east, they are: Barries Bay, Creamery Bay, Schooner Bay, Home Bay, and Estero de Limantour. The 1,700-acre project area includes DBOC facilities and operations in congressionally-designated potential wilderness (1,363 acres), 2.6 acres of onshore property, and two acres incorporating the well and septic areas. The project area also includes a kayak launch parking area and an access road leading from Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. All land and water portions of the project area are owned by the National Park Service. This draft EIS explores four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) under which existing authorizations would expire and conversion of Drakes Estero to full wilderness would ensue. Under the three action alternatives, a new 10-year SUP would be issued for commercial oyster operations in Drakes Estero through November 30, 2022. The action alternatives would involve differing levels of onshore facilities and infrastructure and offshore operations. Alternative B would allow existing onshore facilities and infrastructure and offshore operations for a period of 10 years. Alternative C would allow a level of use that is consistent with the conditions and operations that existed at the time the current SUP was signed in April 2008. Alternative D considers expansion of operations and development of new infrastructure as requested by DBOC. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new SUP would allow DBOC to cultivate and produce 500,000 to 850,000 pounds annually of shellfish including Pacific oysters, European flat oysters, Manila clams, and purple-hinged rock scallops. DBOC would be required to pay fair market value for the use of federal property, which includes onshore and offshore areas within the permit boundaries. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Offshore infrastructure and operations would continue on 138 or more acres of intertidal wetlands, resulting in long-term impacts on estuarine subtidal and intertidal systems due to bottom bags, cluster culture for shell hardening, and anchors for bag lines lying on the bottom substrate. Operation of boats and barges would continue to disturb sediment and impact sandbars and mudflats. Propeller damage to subtidal and intertidal aquatic eelgrass beds could occur. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law (PL) 111-88. JF - EPA number: 110328, 722 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Water KW - Bays KW - Estuaries KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness Management KW - California KW - Point Reyes National Seashore KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law (PL) 111-88, Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16377411?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DRAKES+BAY+OYSTER+COMPANY+%28DBOC%29+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=DRAKES+BAY+OYSTER+COMPANY+%28DBOC%29+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Point Reyes Station, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 49 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287635; 15082-4_0049 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 49 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287635?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 48 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287634; 15082-4_0048 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 48 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287634?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 46 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287632; 15082-4_0046 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 46 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287632?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 45 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287631; 15082-4_0045 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 45 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287631?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 43 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287629; 15082-4_0043 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 43 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287629?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 41 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287627; 15082-4_0041 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 41 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287627?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 40 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287626; 15082-4_0040 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 40 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287626?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=Jenny&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=4&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=76&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Research+in+Autism+Spectrum+Disorders&rft.issn=17509467&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.rasd.2009.07.009 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 38 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287624; 15082-4_0038 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287624?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 37 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287623; 15082-4_0037 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 37 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287623?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 36 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287622; 15082-4_0036 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287622?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 35 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287621; 15082-4_0035 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287621?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 34 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287618; 15082-4_0034 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287618?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 33 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287616; 15082-4_0033 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287616?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 32 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287615; 15082-4_0032 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287615?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 31 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287613; 15082-4_0031 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287613?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 28 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287610; 15082-4_0028 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287610?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 27 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287609; 15082-4_0027 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287609?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 26 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287608; 15082-4_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287608?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 25 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287605; 15082-4_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287605?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 24 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287600; 15082-4_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287600?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 23 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287594; 15082-4_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287594?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 21 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287583; 15082-4_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287583?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 20 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287578; 15082-4_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287578?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 19 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287571; 15082-4_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287571?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 17 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287560; 15082-4_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287560?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 16 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287555; 15082-4_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287555?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 15 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287549; 15082-4_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287549?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 14 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287046; 15082-4_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287046?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 13 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287033; 15082-4_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287033?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=47&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=495&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Japanese+Journal+of+Special+Education&rft.issn=03873374&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 11 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287009; 15082-4_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287009?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 10 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909286997; 15082-4_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909286997?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 5 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909286987; 15082-4_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909286987?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 3 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909286959; 15082-4_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909286959?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 2 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909286951; 15082-4_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909286951?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 9 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909285717; 15082-4_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909285717?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=1983-10-01&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=363&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Education+%26+Treatment+of+Children&rft.issn=07488491&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 8 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909285698; 15082-4_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909285698?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 7 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909285678; 15082-4_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909285678?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 6 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909285649; 15082-4_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909285649?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 23 of 35] T2 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874551; 15074-6_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874551?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 22 of 35] T2 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874547; 15074-6_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874547?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 21 of 35] T2 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874544; 15074-6_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874544?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 20 of 35] T2 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874542; 15074-6_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874542?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 19 of 35] T2 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874539; 15074-6_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874539?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 18 of 35] T2 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874536; 15074-6_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874536?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 35] T2 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874533; 15074-6_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874533?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 16 of 35] T2 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874529; 15074-6_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874529?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 15 of 35] T2 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874528; 15074-6_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874528?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 35] T2 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874523; 15074-6_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874523?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-01&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=2565&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Current+Medical+Research+and+Opinion&rft.issn=03007995&rft_id=info:doi/10.1185%2F03007995.2010.518131 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 35] T2 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874518; 15074-6_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874518?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 35] T2 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874517; 15074-6_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874517?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 35] T2 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874511; 15074-6_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874511?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 35] T2 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874509; 15074-6_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874509?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 35] T2 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874504; 15074-6_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874504?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 35] T2 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874501; 15074-6_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874501?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 35] T2 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874492; 15074-6_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874492?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 35] T2 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874489; 15074-6_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874489?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 35] T2 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874487; 15074-6_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874487?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 35] T2 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874481; 15074-6_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874481?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 35] T2 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874475; 15074-6_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874475?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 35] T2 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874470; 15074-6_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874470?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 35] T2 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874466; 15074-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874466?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 33 of 35] T2 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874454; 15074-6_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874454?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 32 of 35] T2 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874431; 15074-6_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874431?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 35 of 35] T2 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874321; 15074-6_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874321?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 34 of 35] T2 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874317; 15074-6_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874317?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 31 of 35] T2 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874305; 15074-6_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874305?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 30 of 35] T2 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874298; 15074-6_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874298?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 29 of 35] T2 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874289; 15074-6_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874289?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 28 of 35] T2 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874284; 15074-6_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874284?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 27 of 35] T2 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874274; 15074-6_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874274?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 26 of 35] T2 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874240; 15074-6_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874240?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 25 of 35] T2 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874233; 15074-6_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874233?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 24 of 35] T2 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874227; 15074-6_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874227?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NC-1409 (MILITARY CUTOFF ROAD) EXTENSION AND PROPOSED US 17 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS, NEW HANOVER AND PENDER COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - NC-1409 (MILITARY CUTOFF ROAD) EXTENSION AND PROPOSED US 17 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS, NEW HANOVER AND PENDER COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 905872693; 15080-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Two transportation improvement projects, Military Cutoff Road Extension in New Hanover County and the US 17 Hampstead Bypass in New Hanover and Pender counties, in southeastern North Carolina are proposed. The US 17 Corridor Study area is the only coastal area in North Carolina that is accessible by interstate highway, making it a popular destination because of its proximity to the Atlantic Ocean, beaches, and estuarine waters. Wilmington and nearby communities of Hampstead, Topsail Island, Wrightsville Beach, Kure Beach, and Carolina Beach offer numerous options for dining, shopping, recreation, and entertainment. In addition to a No Build Alternative, this draft EIS considers six detailed study alternatives including four alternatives for the Hampstead Bypass (Project R-3300) and two alternatives for Military Cutoff Road Extension (Project U-4751). Alternatives for Hampstead Bypass include E-H, O, R, and U and would involve construction of a four-to-six lane freeway primarily on new location. Access to the proposed freeway would be provided at interchanges. Alternatives for Military Cutoff Road Extension include M1 and M2 and would involve construction of a six-lane roadway on new location. Access to the roadway would be provided at an interchange with US 17 Business (Market Street) and signalized intersections with Putnam Drive, Lendire Road and Torchwood Boulevard. Only right turns would be allowed onto Military Cutoff Road Extension from the signalized intersections. Signalized U-turn lanes would be provided. Total cost of the combined projects is estimated at $356.2 million to $404.8 million. Transportation system management, travel demand management, and mass transit alternatives were also considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project construction would improve the traffic carrying capacity and safety of the US 17 and Market Street corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would impact 16.6 to 18.0 miles of streams, 218.4 to 384.4 acres of wetlands, 406 to 518 acres of forest, and 49.9 to 67.5 acres of important farmlands. Implementation would likely adversely affect federally-protected species including red-cockaded woodpecker, Cooleys meadowrue, golden sedge, and rough-leaved loosestrife. New right-of-way would displace 59 to 95 residences, 84 or 106 businesses, and one or four historic properties. Noise receptor impacts would range from 236 to 310. The Military Cutoff Road Extension could impact five properties that either have or formerly had underground storage tanks. 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: 110322, 312 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905872693?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NC-1409+%28MILITARY+CUTOFF+ROAD%29+EXTENSION+AND+PROPOSED+US+17+HAMPSTEAD+BYPASS%2C+NEW+HANOVER+AND+PENDER+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=NC-1409+%28MILITARY+CUTOFF+ROAD%29+EXTENSION+AND+PROPOSED+US+17+HAMPSTEAD+BYPASS%2C+NEW+HANOVER+AND+PENDER+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 904005040; 15082 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/904005040?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIER S MARINE TERMINAL AND BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PORT OF LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 904005034; 15074 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new marine terminal and related dredge and fill activities for the Port of Long Beach, California are proposed. The Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvement Project is located in the Northwest, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The proposed project is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel. The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Three-Berth Alternative is the proposed project and would involve construction of a new 160-acre container terminal at Pier S with rail access, as well as Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: property transfer; dredging of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; construction of wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installation of container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pier headlines. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle one million containers per year, transported by 312 vessel calls (six per week). The Three-Berth Alternative would result in 3,692 truck trips per day in the opening year, and 7,168 per day at full operation in 2020. Rail operations would result in 1.5 trains per day at the terminals rail yard, and rail traffic at near-dock and off-dock rail yards would be increased by the equivalent of 3.2 trains per day. The Two-Berth Alternative would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf and Back Channel improvements. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel and permits would not be required. The proposed project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013, begin operation in 2013, and likely reach full operational capacity by 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization and construction would correct navigational safety issues and help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels. Greater efficiency and capacity would enable the Port to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter generated during construction and operations would result in significant air quality and health impacts. The potential for cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Dredging 881,000 cubic yards of material from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels would cause short-term losses to benthic epifaunal and infaunal communities, and rocky subtidal and intertidal biota. Additional traffic generated by the project would have significant impacts at certain intersections and highway segments in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110316, Draft EIS--717 pages, Appendices--2,177 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Environmental Justice KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazards KW - Railroads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Long Beach Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/904005034?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PIER+S+MARINE+TERMINAL+AND+BACK+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+PORT+OF+LONGBEACH%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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Effects on the pH Values on the Enhancement of Nitrate Reduction with Methyl Orange and Pd-In/aAl2O3 T2 - 54th Annual Meeting of Association of Engineering Geologists (AEG 2011) AN - 1312992539; 6044285 JF - 54th Annual Meeting of Association of Engineering Geologists (AEG 2011) AU - Suazo-Davila, Deborah AU - Shuai, Danmeng Y1 - 2011/09/19/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Sep 19 KW - nitrate reduction KW - pH KW - Nitrate reduction KW - Abiotic factors UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312992539?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=54th+Annual+Meeting+of+Association+of+Engineering+Geologists+%28AEG+2011%29&rft.atitle=Effects+on+the+pH+Values+on+the+Enhancement+of+Nitrate+Reduction+with+Methyl+Orange+and+Pd-In%2FaAl2O3&rft.au=Suazo-Davila%2C+Deborah%3BShuai%2C+Danmeng&rft.aulast=Suazo-Davila&rft.aufirst=Deborah&rft.date=2011-09-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=54th+Annual+Meeting+of+Association+of+Engineering+Geologists+%28AEG+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.aegweb.org/files/public/PWA_2011.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Evaluation of Effect of Volume and Length of Jute on Mechanical Properties of Asphalt Cement and Asphalt Concrete T2 - 54th Annual Meeting of Association of Engineering Geologists (AEG 2011) AN - 1312987447; 6044188 JF - 54th Annual Meeting of Association of Engineering Geologists (AEG 2011) AU - Suazo-Davila, Deborah AU - Mehta, Yusuf AU - Jahan, Kauser Y1 - 2011/09/19/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Sep 19 KW - asphalt KW - Concrete KW - Cement KW - Asphalt KW - Mechanical properties UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312987447?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=54th+Annual+Meeting+of+Association+of+Engineering+Geologists+%28AEG+2011%29&rft.atitle=Evaluation+of+Effect+of+Volume+and+Length+of+Jute+on+Mechanical+Properties+of+Asphalt+Cement+and+Asphalt+Concrete&rft.au=Suazo-Davila%2C+Deborah%3BMehta%2C+Yusuf%3BJahan%2C+Kauser&rft.aulast=Suazo-Davila&rft.aufirst=Deborah&rft.date=2011-09-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=54th+Annual+Meeting+of+Association+of+Engineering+Geologists+%28AEG+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.aegweb.org/files/public/PWA_2011.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Challenges of Grouting in Karst Geology for the Upstream Monoliths of the Kentucky Lock Addition Project T2 - 54th Annual Meeting of Association of Engineering Geologists (AEG 2011) AN - 1312963384; 6044254 JF - 54th Annual Meeting of Association of Engineering Geologists (AEG 2011) AU - Arles, Michael AU - Reel, Aaron AU - Robinson, Jeremy Y1 - 2011/09/19/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Sep 19 KW - USA, Kentucky KW - upstream KW - Geology KW - Grouting UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312963384?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=54th+Annual+Meeting+of+Association+of+Engineering+Geologists+%28AEG+2011%29&rft.atitle=Challenges+of+Grouting+in+Karst+Geology+for+the+Upstream+Monoliths+of+the+Kentucky+Lock+Addition+Project&rft.au=Arles%2C+Michael%3BReel%2C+Aaron%3BRobinson%2C+Jeremy&rft.aulast=Arles&rft.aufirst=Michael&rft.date=2011-09-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=54th+Annual+Meeting+of+Association+of+Engineering+Geologists+%28AEG+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.aegweb.org/files/public/PWA_2011.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Coastal Remote Sensing through Sensor and Data Fusion with Czmil T2 - OCEANS 2011 MTS/IEEE (OCEANS 2011) AN - 1312959452; 6036055 JF - OCEANS 2011 MTS/IEEE (OCEANS 2011) AU - Sylvester, Charlene AU - Macon, Christopher Y1 - 2011/09/19/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Sep 19 KW - Remote sensing KW - Sensors KW - Data processing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312959452?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=OCEANS+2011+MTS%2FIEEE+%28OCEANS+2011%29&rft.atitle=Coastal+Remote+Sensing+through+Sensor+and+Data+Fusion+with+Czmil&rft.au=Sylvester%2C+Charlene%3BMacon%2C+Christopher&rft.aulast=Sylvester&rft.aufirst=Charlene&rft.date=2011-09-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=OCEANS+2011+MTS%2FIEEE+%28OCEANS+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.oceans11mtsieeekona.org/technical_program.html LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Howard Hanson Dam Seepage - What Have we Done and Where are we Going? T2 - 54th Annual Meeting of Association of Engineering Geologists (AEG 2011) AN - 1312943133; 6044128 JF - 54th Annual Meeting of Association of Engineering Geologists (AEG 2011) AU - Smith, Richard Y1 - 2011/09/19/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Sep 19 KW - seepages KW - Seepages UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312943133?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=54th+Annual+Meeting+of+Association+of+Engineering+Geologists+%28AEG+2011%29&rft.atitle=Howard+Hanson+Dam+Seepage+-+What+Have+we+Done+and+Where+are+we+Going%3F&rft.au=Smith%2C+Richard&rft.aulast=Smith&rft.aufirst=Richard&rft.date=2011-09-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=54th+Annual+Meeting+of+Association+of+Engineering+Geologists+%28AEG+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.aegweb.org/files/public/PWA_2011.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Turning Geologic Data into Knowledge: Why Geologic Data for Teton Dam, Malpasset Dam, St. Francis Dam and Others Did Not Prevent Failure T2 - 54th Annual Meeting of Association of Engineering Geologists (AEG 2011) AN - 1312942875; 6044125 JF - 54th Annual Meeting of Association of Engineering Geologists (AEG 2011) AU - Shaffner, Peter Y1 - 2011/09/19/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Sep 19 KW - Geology KW - Data processing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312942875?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=54th+Annual+Meeting+of+Association+of+Engineering+Geologists+%28AEG+2011%29&rft.atitle=Turning+Geologic+Data+into+Knowledge%3A+Why+Geologic+Data+for+Teton+Dam%2C+Malpasset+Dam%2C+St.+Francis+Dam+and+Others+Did+Not+Prevent+Failure&rft.au=Shaffner%2C+Peter&rft.aulast=Shaffner&rft.aufirst=Peter&rft.date=2011-09-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=54th+Annual+Meeting+of+Association+of+Engineering+Geologists+%28AEG+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.aegweb.org/files/public/PWA_2011.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - 2006 Hawaii Dam Inspections T2 - 54th Annual Meeting of Association of Engineering Geologists (AEG 2011) AN - 1312942774; 6044123 JF - 54th Annual Meeting of Association of Engineering Geologists (AEG 2011) AU - Kolber, Jonathan Y1 - 2011/09/19/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Sep 19 KW - USA, Hawaii KW - inspection UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312942774?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=54th+Annual+Meeting+of+Association+of+Engineering+Geologists+%28AEG+2011%29&rft.atitle=2006+Hawaii+Dam+Inspections&rft.au=Kolber%2C+Jonathan&rft.aulast=Kolber&rft.aufirst=Jonathan&rft.date=2011-09-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=54th+Annual+Meeting+of+Association+of+Engineering+Geologists+%28AEG+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.aegweb.org/files/public/PWA_2011.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 33 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905874139; 15069-1_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874139?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 32 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905874132; 15069-1_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874132?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 31 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905874129; 15069-1_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874129?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 30 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905874125; 15069-1_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874125?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 29 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905874119; 15069-1_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874119?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 28 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905874115; 15069-1_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874115?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 27 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905874112; 15069-1_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874112?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 26 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905874107; 15069-1_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874107?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 25 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905874103; 15069-1_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874103?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 24 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905874098; 15069-1_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874098?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 23 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905874095; 15069-1_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874095?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 22 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905874090; 15069-1_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874090?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 21 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905874087; 15069-1_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874087?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 20 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905874079; 15069-1_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874079?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 19 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905874076; 15069-1_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874076?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 18 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905874072; 15069-1_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874072?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 17 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905874066; 15069-1_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874066?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 14 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905874062; 15069-1_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874062?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2014-05-01&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=372&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Research+on+Social+Work+Practice&rft.issn=10497315&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 13 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905874059; 15069-1_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874059?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 12 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905874058; 15069-1_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874058?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 11 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905874052; 15069-1_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874052?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 36 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905874046; 15069-1_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874046?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 35 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905874044; 15069-1_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874044?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 34 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905874039; 15069-1_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874039?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 16 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905874033; 15069-1_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874033?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 15 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905874032; 15069-1_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874032?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 10 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905874015; 15069-1_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874015?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 9 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905874014; 15069-1_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874014?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 8 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905874007; 15069-1_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874007?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 7 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905874005; 15069-1_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874005?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 6 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905874003; 15069-1_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874003?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 5 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905873997; 15069-1_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873997?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 4 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905873996; 15069-1_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873996?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 3 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905873994; 15069-1_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873994?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 2 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905873992; 15069-1_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873992?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. [Part 1 of 36] T2 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 905873985; 15069-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873985?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW JERSEY - NEW YORK EXPANSION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND CONNECTICUT. AN - 904005029; 15069 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is proposed. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Corporation, filed an application on December 20, 2010 for the New Jersey - New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project) which would involve the construction and operation of approximately 19.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated equipment and facilities. Of this total, 15.0 miles would consist of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in the Boroughs of Staten Island and Manhattan, New York and the cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken, New Jersey, and 4.8 miles would consist of 42-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in the Borough of Staten Island, New York and the city of Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern and Algonquin also propose to abandon 8.95 miles of existing 12-, 20-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in the City of Linden, New Jersey and the Borough of Staten Island, New York. The applicants also propose to construct and operate six new metering and regulating stations; modify existing compressor stations; and remove, replace, or install launchers and receivers and pipeline valves at several locations along the pipeline. Major issues raised during scoping include safety and the proximity of the pipelines and construction activities to homes, businesses, and public buildings; alternative routing/siting for the proposed facilities; impacts on residents and businesses during construction; impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, and public parklands; and impacts on community infrastructure and water supplies. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. Texas Eastern and Algonquin propose to begin construction in 2012 and place the project facilities in service by November of 2013. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide Consolidated Edison Companys (Con Edison) customers with access to diverse natural gas supplies from liquefied natural gas and Canadian gas supplies via Algonquins system; access to supplies from the Gulf Coast, Mid-continent, and Rockies through Texas Easterns system; and access to the growing supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Basin via both pipeline systems. The NJ-NY Project would eliminate a critical capacity constraint, enhance customer choice, and provide additional operational flexibility for Texas Eastern, Algonquin, and Con Edison. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve a total of 33 waterbody crossings, including the removal of pipe from one waterbody. Nine of the proposed crossings would involve major waterbodies, the largest of which would be the Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and the Hudson River. A total of 25.5 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted and 3.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent right-of-way. Essential fish habitat and habitat associated with a variety of migratory bird species could be affected. Multiple areas of known soil contamination would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. One historic property, and possibly two properties that are on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110311, Draft EIS--449 pages, Appendices--593 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0241D KW - Dredging KW - Drilling KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arthur Kill KW - Connecticut KW - Hudson River KW - Kill Van Kull KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/904005029?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NEW+JERSEY+-+NEW+YORK+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+AND+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Design and Optimization of the Long Diversion System for a Hydropower Station AN - 902383226; 15888307 AB - According to the topographical and geological conditions of a hydropower station in Xinjiang, the sections of diversion tunnel with Class II or IIIa surrounding rock are designed to be lined with shotcrete and anchor rod as a permanent lining instead of conventional reinforced concrete full-face lining. The lining optimization shortens the construction period. Based on existing engineering experiences, the service gate for the upstream surge chamber is cancelled, which can not only guarantee the safe operation of power plant, but also reduces the engineering investment. The design optimization can be as references for similar diversion tunnel. JF - Shuili Fadian/Water Power AU - Pan, X AU - Yang, Z AU - Guo, Y AD - Xinjiang Investigation and Design Institute for Water Resources and Hydropower, Urumqi 830000, Xinjinag, China Y1 - 2011/09/12/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Sep 12 SP - 32 EP - 34 PB - Water Power Press Co., Ltd., No. 2 Beixiaojie Liupukang, Dewai Xicheng District, Beijing, China China VL - 37 IS - 9 SN - 0559-9342, 0559-9342 KW - Aqualine Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Reinforced Concrete KW - reinforced concrete KW - Hydroelectric Plants KW - hydroelectric power KW - Powerplants KW - Engineering KW - upstream KW - Power plants KW - Geology KW - Investment KW - Anchors KW - Surges KW - Linings KW - Tunnels KW - Design KW - China, People's Rep., Xinjiang KW - Reinforced concrete KW - Diversion KW - Optimization KW - Q2 09263:Topography and morphology KW - AQ 00005:Underground Services and Water Use KW - SW 6010:Structures UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/902383226?accountid=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=Shuili+Fadian%2FWater+Power&rft.atitle=Design+and+Optimization+of+the+Long+Diversion+System+for+a+Hydropower+Station&rft.au=Pan%2C+X%3BYang%2C+Z%3BGuo%2C+Y&rft.aulast=Pan&rft.aufirst=X&rft.date=2011-09-12&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=32&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Shuili+Fadian%2FWater+Power&rft.issn=05599342&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - Chinese DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-02 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Anchors; Surges; Power plants; Reinforced concrete; Tunnels; upstream; reinforced concrete; Geology; hydroelectric power; Design; Reinforced Concrete; Powerplants; Engineering; Hydroelectric Plants; Investment; Linings; Diversion; Optimization; China, People's Rep., Xinjiang ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 14 of 26] T2 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 900616433; 15052-4_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of between 17.4 and 21 miles of high-speed, four-lane arterial highway from the southern terminus of the current, four-lane arterial portion of Louisiana Highway (LA) 21 in Bush, Louisiana, to Interstate 12 (I-12) is proposed. The project area for LA 3241 is entirely within St. Tammany Parish and roughly bounded by LA 21, US 190, I-12, US 11, and LA 41. It encompasses approximately 245 square miles in area and includes the incorporated areas of Abita Springs, Pearl River, and portions of the cities of Slidell and Covington. Unincorporated areas such as Bush, Hickory, Talisheek, and Waldheim are included in the project area. LA 21 is a four-lane divided highway between the city of Bogalusa, in Washington Parish, and Bush, in St. Tammany Parish ending at its intersection with LA 41. The proposed I-12 to Bush highway would extend the four-lane section from that point to an existing interchange on I-12 by expanding an existing highway to four lanes or constructing a new alignment with a maximum right-of-way (ROW) width of 250 feet. The majority of the proposed highway would be designed as a rural arterial road with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The typical cross section would have two 12-foot travel lanes, an eight- to 10-foot outside shoulder, and a four-foot inside shoulder in each direction. The median width would vary depending on highway design class used ranging between 40 and 60 feet. The exception to that design could be as the proposed project transitions into existing roadways and where alternative alignments follow the existing LA 21. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development's preferred alignment, Alternative P, would begin at the intersection of LA 41 and LA 40 in Bush and proceed southward for 17.4 miles to LA 1088. The majority of the project would have a typical ROW width requirement of 250 feet. The northern 0.7 mile of the project would also have a ROW width of 250 feet. The exception to that design would be at the southern end of the project area where the last 1.5 miles would be designed as a suburban arterial with a ROW width of approximately 180 feet. The proposed route would use an abandoned railroad corridor from Bush to Talisheek, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles, before turning southwesterly for 13.3 miles on a new alignment to connect with LA 1088 north of I-12. Access for this route would be provided in Bush, at LA 435, at LA 36, and at the intersection with LA 1088. Crossings of existing highways would be at grade. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed highway would provide a four-lane highway connection for Washington and northern St. Tammany Parishes to I-12, with the goal of fulfilling regional transportation needs and stimulating economic growth and activity in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would replace existing land cover with impervious road surfaces and could result in the loss or degradation of fish and wildlife habitat. Under the preferred alternative, 20 acres of pine flatwoods habitat and 358 acres of wetlands within the ROW would be permanently lost; an additional 208 acres of wetlands outside the ROW could be impacted. Channel and overland flow could be impeded resulting in a change in the vegetative complex and increased duration of ponding and drought conditions. The amount of wetlands throughout the study area could be reduced. A noticeable increase in traffic noise would be expected for all receptors within one mile of the proposed control of access highways. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110294, Draft EIS-316 pages, Appendices--1,049 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Hydrology KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900616433?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 20 of 26] T2 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 900616109; 15052-4_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of between 17.4 and 21 miles of high-speed, four-lane arterial highway from the southern terminus of the current, four-lane arterial portion of Louisiana Highway (LA) 21 in Bush, Louisiana, to Interstate 12 (I-12) is proposed. The project area for LA 3241 is entirely within St. Tammany Parish and roughly bounded by LA 21, US 190, I-12, US 11, and LA 41. It encompasses approximately 245 square miles in area and includes the incorporated areas of Abita Springs, Pearl River, and portions of the cities of Slidell and Covington. Unincorporated areas such as Bush, Hickory, Talisheek, and Waldheim are included in the project area. LA 21 is a four-lane divided highway between the city of Bogalusa, in Washington Parish, and Bush, in St. Tammany Parish ending at its intersection with LA 41. The proposed I-12 to Bush highway would extend the four-lane section from that point to an existing interchange on I-12 by expanding an existing highway to four lanes or constructing a new alignment with a maximum right-of-way (ROW) width of 250 feet. The majority of the proposed highway would be designed as a rural arterial road with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The typical cross section would have two 12-foot travel lanes, an eight- to 10-foot outside shoulder, and a four-foot inside shoulder in each direction. The median width would vary depending on highway design class used ranging between 40 and 60 feet. The exception to that design could be as the proposed project transitions into existing roadways and where alternative alignments follow the existing LA 21. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development's preferred alignment, Alternative P, would begin at the intersection of LA 41 and LA 40 in Bush and proceed southward for 17.4 miles to LA 1088. The majority of the project would have a typical ROW width requirement of 250 feet. The northern 0.7 mile of the project would also have a ROW width of 250 feet. The exception to that design would be at the southern end of the project area where the last 1.5 miles would be designed as a suburban arterial with a ROW width of approximately 180 feet. The proposed route would use an abandoned railroad corridor from Bush to Talisheek, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles, before turning southwesterly for 13.3 miles on a new alignment to connect with LA 1088 north of I-12. Access for this route would be provided in Bush, at LA 435, at LA 36, and at the intersection with LA 1088. Crossings of existing highways would be at grade. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed highway would provide a four-lane highway connection for Washington and northern St. Tammany Parishes to I-12, with the goal of fulfilling regional transportation needs and stimulating economic growth and activity in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would replace existing land cover with impervious road surfaces and could result in the loss or degradation of fish and wildlife habitat. Under the preferred alternative, 20 acres of pine flatwoods habitat and 358 acres of wetlands within the ROW would be permanently lost; an additional 208 acres of wetlands outside the ROW could be impacted. Channel and overland flow could be impeded resulting in a change in the vegetative complex and increased duration of ponding and drought conditions. The amount of wetlands throughout the study area could be reduced. A noticeable increase in traffic noise would be expected for all receptors within one mile of the proposed control of access highways. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110294, Draft EIS-316 pages, Appendices--1,049 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Hydrology KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900616109?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 19 of 26] T2 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 900616106; 15052-4_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of between 17.4 and 21 miles of high-speed, four-lane arterial highway from the southern terminus of the current, four-lane arterial portion of Louisiana Highway (LA) 21 in Bush, Louisiana, to Interstate 12 (I-12) is proposed. The project area for LA 3241 is entirely within St. Tammany Parish and roughly bounded by LA 21, US 190, I-12, US 11, and LA 41. It encompasses approximately 245 square miles in area and includes the incorporated areas of Abita Springs, Pearl River, and portions of the cities of Slidell and Covington. Unincorporated areas such as Bush, Hickory, Talisheek, and Waldheim are included in the project area. LA 21 is a four-lane divided highway between the city of Bogalusa, in Washington Parish, and Bush, in St. Tammany Parish ending at its intersection with LA 41. The proposed I-12 to Bush highway would extend the four-lane section from that point to an existing interchange on I-12 by expanding an existing highway to four lanes or constructing a new alignment with a maximum right-of-way (ROW) width of 250 feet. The majority of the proposed highway would be designed as a rural arterial road with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The typical cross section would have two 12-foot travel lanes, an eight- to 10-foot outside shoulder, and a four-foot inside shoulder in each direction. The median width would vary depending on highway design class used ranging between 40 and 60 feet. The exception to that design could be as the proposed project transitions into existing roadways and where alternative alignments follow the existing LA 21. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development's preferred alignment, Alternative P, would begin at the intersection of LA 41 and LA 40 in Bush and proceed southward for 17.4 miles to LA 1088. The majority of the project would have a typical ROW width requirement of 250 feet. The northern 0.7 mile of the project would also have a ROW width of 250 feet. The exception to that design would be at the southern end of the project area where the last 1.5 miles would be designed as a suburban arterial with a ROW width of approximately 180 feet. The proposed route would use an abandoned railroad corridor from Bush to Talisheek, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles, before turning southwesterly for 13.3 miles on a new alignment to connect with LA 1088 north of I-12. Access for this route would be provided in Bush, at LA 435, at LA 36, and at the intersection with LA 1088. Crossings of existing highways would be at grade. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed highway would provide a four-lane highway connection for Washington and northern St. Tammany Parishes to I-12, with the goal of fulfilling regional transportation needs and stimulating economic growth and activity in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would replace existing land cover with impervious road surfaces and could result in the loss or degradation of fish and wildlife habitat. Under the preferred alternative, 20 acres of pine flatwoods habitat and 358 acres of wetlands within the ROW would be permanently lost; an additional 208 acres of wetlands outside the ROW could be impacted. Channel and overland flow could be impeded resulting in a change in the vegetative complex and increased duration of ponding and drought conditions. The amount of wetlands throughout the study area could be reduced. A noticeable increase in traffic noise would be expected for all receptors within one mile of the proposed control of access highways. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110294, Draft EIS-316 pages, Appendices--1,049 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Hydrology KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900616106?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 26 of 26] T2 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 900615968; 15052-4_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of between 17.4 and 21 miles of high-speed, four-lane arterial highway from the southern terminus of the current, four-lane arterial portion of Louisiana Highway (LA) 21 in Bush, Louisiana, to Interstate 12 (I-12) is proposed. The project area for LA 3241 is entirely within St. Tammany Parish and roughly bounded by LA 21, US 190, I-12, US 11, and LA 41. It encompasses approximately 245 square miles in area and includes the incorporated areas of Abita Springs, Pearl River, and portions of the cities of Slidell and Covington. Unincorporated areas such as Bush, Hickory, Talisheek, and Waldheim are included in the project area. LA 21 is a four-lane divided highway between the city of Bogalusa, in Washington Parish, and Bush, in St. Tammany Parish ending at its intersection with LA 41. The proposed I-12 to Bush highway would extend the four-lane section from that point to an existing interchange on I-12 by expanding an existing highway to four lanes or constructing a new alignment with a maximum right-of-way (ROW) width of 250 feet. The majority of the proposed highway would be designed as a rural arterial road with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The typical cross section would have two 12-foot travel lanes, an eight- to 10-foot outside shoulder, and a four-foot inside shoulder in each direction. The median width would vary depending on highway design class used ranging between 40 and 60 feet. The exception to that design could be as the proposed project transitions into existing roadways and where alternative alignments follow the existing LA 21. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development's preferred alignment, Alternative P, would begin at the intersection of LA 41 and LA 40 in Bush and proceed southward for 17.4 miles to LA 1088. The majority of the project would have a typical ROW width requirement of 250 feet. The northern 0.7 mile of the project would also have a ROW width of 250 feet. The exception to that design would be at the southern end of the project area where the last 1.5 miles would be designed as a suburban arterial with a ROW width of approximately 180 feet. The proposed route would use an abandoned railroad corridor from Bush to Talisheek, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles, before turning southwesterly for 13.3 miles on a new alignment to connect with LA 1088 north of I-12. Access for this route would be provided in Bush, at LA 435, at LA 36, and at the intersection with LA 1088. Crossings of existing highways would be at grade. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed highway would provide a four-lane highway connection for Washington and northern St. Tammany Parishes to I-12, with the goal of fulfilling regional transportation needs and stimulating economic growth and activity in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would replace existing land cover with impervious road surfaces and could result in the loss or degradation of fish and wildlife habitat. Under the preferred alternative, 20 acres of pine flatwoods habitat and 358 acres of wetlands within the ROW would be permanently lost; an additional 208 acres of wetlands outside the ROW could be impacted. Channel and overland flow could be impeded resulting in a change in the vegetative complex and increased duration of ponding and drought conditions. The amount of wetlands throughout the study area could be reduced. A noticeable increase in traffic noise would be expected for all receptors within one mile of the proposed control of access highways. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110294, Draft EIS-316 pages, Appendices--1,049 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Hydrology KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615968?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 25 of 26] T2 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 900615903; 15052-4_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of between 17.4 and 21 miles of high-speed, four-lane arterial highway from the southern terminus of the current, four-lane arterial portion of Louisiana Highway (LA) 21 in Bush, Louisiana, to Interstate 12 (I-12) is proposed. The project area for LA 3241 is entirely within St. Tammany Parish and roughly bounded by LA 21, US 190, I-12, US 11, and LA 41. It encompasses approximately 245 square miles in area and includes the incorporated areas of Abita Springs, Pearl River, and portions of the cities of Slidell and Covington. Unincorporated areas such as Bush, Hickory, Talisheek, and Waldheim are included in the project area. LA 21 is a four-lane divided highway between the city of Bogalusa, in Washington Parish, and Bush, in St. Tammany Parish ending at its intersection with LA 41. The proposed I-12 to Bush highway would extend the four-lane section from that point to an existing interchange on I-12 by expanding an existing highway to four lanes or constructing a new alignment with a maximum right-of-way (ROW) width of 250 feet. The majority of the proposed highway would be designed as a rural arterial road with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The typical cross section would have two 12-foot travel lanes, an eight- to 10-foot outside shoulder, and a four-foot inside shoulder in each direction. The median width would vary depending on highway design class used ranging between 40 and 60 feet. The exception to that design could be as the proposed project transitions into existing roadways and where alternative alignments follow the existing LA 21. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development's preferred alignment, Alternative P, would begin at the intersection of LA 41 and LA 40 in Bush and proceed southward for 17.4 miles to LA 1088. The majority of the project would have a typical ROW width requirement of 250 feet. The northern 0.7 mile of the project would also have a ROW width of 250 feet. The exception to that design would be at the southern end of the project area where the last 1.5 miles would be designed as a suburban arterial with a ROW width of approximately 180 feet. The proposed route would use an abandoned railroad corridor from Bush to Talisheek, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles, before turning southwesterly for 13.3 miles on a new alignment to connect with LA 1088 north of I-12. Access for this route would be provided in Bush, at LA 435, at LA 36, and at the intersection with LA 1088. Crossings of existing highways would be at grade. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed highway would provide a four-lane highway connection for Washington and northern St. Tammany Parishes to I-12, with the goal of fulfilling regional transportation needs and stimulating economic growth and activity in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would replace existing land cover with impervious road surfaces and could result in the loss or degradation of fish and wildlife habitat. Under the preferred alternative, 20 acres of pine flatwoods habitat and 358 acres of wetlands within the ROW would be permanently lost; an additional 208 acres of wetlands outside the ROW could be impacted. Channel and overland flow could be impeded resulting in a change in the vegetative complex and increased duration of ponding and drought conditions. The amount of wetlands throughout the study area could be reduced. A noticeable increase in traffic noise would be expected for all receptors within one mile of the proposed control of access highways. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110294, Draft EIS-316 pages, Appendices--1,049 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Hydrology KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615903?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DICKSON SOUTHWEST BYPASS FROM SR-1 (US 70) WEST OF DICKSON, TO SR-46 AND/OR I-40 SOUTH OF DICKSON, DICKSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - DICKSON SOUTHWEST BYPASS FROM SR-1 (US 70) WEST OF DICKSON, TO SR-46 AND/OR I-40 SOUTH OF DICKSON, DICKSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 900615885; 15050-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a bypass on new location around the city of Dickson, Tennessee is proposed. The bypass would begin on the west side of Dickson on US 70 and terminate on Interstate 40 (I-40), State Route 46 (SR-46), or both I-40 and SR-46 south of Dickson. Currently, US-70 to SR-46 is the only primary route connecting the western and southern areas of Dickson and travel speeds through the urban center are low. The SR-46/I-40 interchange, which is the primary access point to Dickson from I-40, is expected to reach operational failure in 2023. The next closest interchange linking Dickson to I-40 is approximately 10 miles away. Therefore, an additional access point between Dickson and I-40 is currently under consideration for the project. Five build alternatives, transportation system management improvements to existing SR-46, and a No Build alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The bypass alternatives vary from 6.4 to 11.0 miles in length and all begin on SR-1 (US 70) between South Eno Road and Pond Switch Road. Alternative 1 has a terminus point at the southern end of the project on I-40. Alternatives 2A and 2C terminate on SR-46. Alternative 1 is proposed as a two-lane roadway with future expansion to four lanes with a depressed median. Alternatives 2A and 2C are proposed to have the same typical section as Alternative 1 from SR-1 (US 70) to SR-48. Then from SR-48 to SR-46, a five-lane section is proposed. Two possible combination alternatives, Alternative 1&2A and Alternative 1&2C, would involve construction of a facility with project termini on both SR-46 and I-40 and would increase accessibility to Dicksons airport. Total project costs are estimated at $50.5 to $60.6 million for the non-combination alternatives and $87.7 to $89.8 million for the combination alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The bypass would provide a transportation facility that improves mobility around the city of Dickson, relieves traffic congestion in Dicksons urban core, improves accessibility to undeveloped land west and south of the city, and supports economic development. Construction would be expected to generate 1,000 full- or part-time jobs and $110 to $132 million into the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a bypass alternative would result in impacts to 120 to 165 acres of forested and old field habitats and up to 33 streams. The acquisition of some vacant property and as many as five rural residences would be required. The trend of conversion of farmland to other uses would likely be accelerated, especially near SR-46 and I-40. The bypass alternatives could directly impact two privately owned recreational resources: the Dickson Saddle and Bridle Club and Robins Park. The Dickson County Saddle and Bridle Club would be acquired for right-of-way if Alternative 2A is selected. Some local businesses would see a decrease in opportunity sales due to removal of traffic on SR-46. However, those losses would likely be recovered by an overall stimulation of the local economy. 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: 110292, 321 pages and maps, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Tennessee KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance 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/900615885?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DICKSON+SOUTHWEST+BYPASS+FROM+SR-1+%28US+70%29+WEST+OF+DICKSON%2C+TO+SR-46+AND%2FOR+I-40+SOUTH+OF+DICKSON%2C+DICKSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=DICKSON+SOUTHWEST+BYPASS+FROM+SR-1+%28US+70%29+WEST+OF+DICKSON%2C+TO+SR-46+AND%2FOR+I-40+SOUTH+OF+DICKSON%2C+DICKSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 23 of 26] T2 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 900615856; 15052-4_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of between 17.4 and 21 miles of high-speed, four-lane arterial highway from the southern terminus of the current, four-lane arterial portion of Louisiana Highway (LA) 21 in Bush, Louisiana, to Interstate 12 (I-12) is proposed. The project area for LA 3241 is entirely within St. Tammany Parish and roughly bounded by LA 21, US 190, I-12, US 11, and LA 41. It encompasses approximately 245 square miles in area and includes the incorporated areas of Abita Springs, Pearl River, and portions of the cities of Slidell and Covington. Unincorporated areas such as Bush, Hickory, Talisheek, and Waldheim are included in the project area. LA 21 is a four-lane divided highway between the city of Bogalusa, in Washington Parish, and Bush, in St. Tammany Parish ending at its intersection with LA 41. The proposed I-12 to Bush highway would extend the four-lane section from that point to an existing interchange on I-12 by expanding an existing highway to four lanes or constructing a new alignment with a maximum right-of-way (ROW) width of 250 feet. The majority of the proposed highway would be designed as a rural arterial road with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The typical cross section would have two 12-foot travel lanes, an eight- to 10-foot outside shoulder, and a four-foot inside shoulder in each direction. The median width would vary depending on highway design class used ranging between 40 and 60 feet. The exception to that design could be as the proposed project transitions into existing roadways and where alternative alignments follow the existing LA 21. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development's preferred alignment, Alternative P, would begin at the intersection of LA 41 and LA 40 in Bush and proceed southward for 17.4 miles to LA 1088. The majority of the project would have a typical ROW width requirement of 250 feet. The northern 0.7 mile of the project would also have a ROW width of 250 feet. The exception to that design would be at the southern end of the project area where the last 1.5 miles would be designed as a suburban arterial with a ROW width of approximately 180 feet. The proposed route would use an abandoned railroad corridor from Bush to Talisheek, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles, before turning southwesterly for 13.3 miles on a new alignment to connect with LA 1088 north of I-12. Access for this route would be provided in Bush, at LA 435, at LA 36, and at the intersection with LA 1088. Crossings of existing highways would be at grade. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed highway would provide a four-lane highway connection for Washington and northern St. Tammany Parishes to I-12, with the goal of fulfilling regional transportation needs and stimulating economic growth and activity in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would replace existing land cover with impervious road surfaces and could result in the loss or degradation of fish and wildlife habitat. Under the preferred alternative, 20 acres of pine flatwoods habitat and 358 acres of wetlands within the ROW would be permanently lost; an additional 208 acres of wetlands outside the ROW could be impacted. Channel and overland flow could be impeded resulting in a change in the vegetative complex and increased duration of ponding and drought conditions. The amount of wetlands throughout the study area could be reduced. A noticeable increase in traffic noise would be expected for all receptors within one mile of the proposed control of access highways. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110294, Draft EIS-316 pages, Appendices--1,049 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Hydrology KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615856?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 22 of 26] T2 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 900615853; 15052-4_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of between 17.4 and 21 miles of high-speed, four-lane arterial highway from the southern terminus of the current, four-lane arterial portion of Louisiana Highway (LA) 21 in Bush, Louisiana, to Interstate 12 (I-12) is proposed. The project area for LA 3241 is entirely within St. Tammany Parish and roughly bounded by LA 21, US 190, I-12, US 11, and LA 41. It encompasses approximately 245 square miles in area and includes the incorporated areas of Abita Springs, Pearl River, and portions of the cities of Slidell and Covington. Unincorporated areas such as Bush, Hickory, Talisheek, and Waldheim are included in the project area. LA 21 is a four-lane divided highway between the city of Bogalusa, in Washington Parish, and Bush, in St. Tammany Parish ending at its intersection with LA 41. The proposed I-12 to Bush highway would extend the four-lane section from that point to an existing interchange on I-12 by expanding an existing highway to four lanes or constructing a new alignment with a maximum right-of-way (ROW) width of 250 feet. The majority of the proposed highway would be designed as a rural arterial road with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The typical cross section would have two 12-foot travel lanes, an eight- to 10-foot outside shoulder, and a four-foot inside shoulder in each direction. The median width would vary depending on highway design class used ranging between 40 and 60 feet. The exception to that design could be as the proposed project transitions into existing roadways and where alternative alignments follow the existing LA 21. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development's preferred alignment, Alternative P, would begin at the intersection of LA 41 and LA 40 in Bush and proceed southward for 17.4 miles to LA 1088. The majority of the project would have a typical ROW width requirement of 250 feet. The northern 0.7 mile of the project would also have a ROW width of 250 feet. The exception to that design would be at the southern end of the project area where the last 1.5 miles would be designed as a suburban arterial with a ROW width of approximately 180 feet. The proposed route would use an abandoned railroad corridor from Bush to Talisheek, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles, before turning southwesterly for 13.3 miles on a new alignment to connect with LA 1088 north of I-12. Access for this route would be provided in Bush, at LA 435, at LA 36, and at the intersection with LA 1088. Crossings of existing highways would be at grade. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed highway would provide a four-lane highway connection for Washington and northern St. Tammany Parishes to I-12, with the goal of fulfilling regional transportation needs and stimulating economic growth and activity in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would replace existing land cover with impervious road surfaces and could result in the loss or degradation of fish and wildlife habitat. Under the preferred alternative, 20 acres of pine flatwoods habitat and 358 acres of wetlands within the ROW would be permanently lost; an additional 208 acres of wetlands outside the ROW could be impacted. Channel and overland flow could be impeded resulting in a change in the vegetative complex and increased duration of ponding and drought conditions. The amount of wetlands throughout the study area could be reduced. A noticeable increase in traffic noise would be expected for all receptors within one mile of the proposed control of access highways. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110294, Draft EIS-316 pages, Appendices--1,049 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Hydrology KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615853?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 21 of 26] T2 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 900615851; 15052-4_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of between 17.4 and 21 miles of high-speed, four-lane arterial highway from the southern terminus of the current, four-lane arterial portion of Louisiana Highway (LA) 21 in Bush, Louisiana, to Interstate 12 (I-12) is proposed. The project area for LA 3241 is entirely within St. Tammany Parish and roughly bounded by LA 21, US 190, I-12, US 11, and LA 41. It encompasses approximately 245 square miles in area and includes the incorporated areas of Abita Springs, Pearl River, and portions of the cities of Slidell and Covington. Unincorporated areas such as Bush, Hickory, Talisheek, and Waldheim are included in the project area. LA 21 is a four-lane divided highway between the city of Bogalusa, in Washington Parish, and Bush, in St. Tammany Parish ending at its intersection with LA 41. The proposed I-12 to Bush highway would extend the four-lane section from that point to an existing interchange on I-12 by expanding an existing highway to four lanes or constructing a new alignment with a maximum right-of-way (ROW) width of 250 feet. The majority of the proposed highway would be designed as a rural arterial road with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The typical cross section would have two 12-foot travel lanes, an eight- to 10-foot outside shoulder, and a four-foot inside shoulder in each direction. The median width would vary depending on highway design class used ranging between 40 and 60 feet. The exception to that design could be as the proposed project transitions into existing roadways and where alternative alignments follow the existing LA 21. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development's preferred alignment, Alternative P, would begin at the intersection of LA 41 and LA 40 in Bush and proceed southward for 17.4 miles to LA 1088. The majority of the project would have a typical ROW width requirement of 250 feet. The northern 0.7 mile of the project would also have a ROW width of 250 feet. The exception to that design would be at the southern end of the project area where the last 1.5 miles would be designed as a suburban arterial with a ROW width of approximately 180 feet. The proposed route would use an abandoned railroad corridor from Bush to Talisheek, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles, before turning southwesterly for 13.3 miles on a new alignment to connect with LA 1088 north of I-12. Access for this route would be provided in Bush, at LA 435, at LA 36, and at the intersection with LA 1088. Crossings of existing highways would be at grade. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed highway would provide a four-lane highway connection for Washington and northern St. Tammany Parishes to I-12, with the goal of fulfilling regional transportation needs and stimulating economic growth and activity in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would replace existing land cover with impervious road surfaces and could result in the loss or degradation of fish and wildlife habitat. Under the preferred alternative, 20 acres of pine flatwoods habitat and 358 acres of wetlands within the ROW would be permanently lost; an additional 208 acres of wetlands outside the ROW could be impacted. Channel and overland flow could be impeded resulting in a change in the vegetative complex and increased duration of ponding and drought conditions. The amount of wetlands throughout the study area could be reduced. A noticeable increase in traffic noise would be expected for all receptors within one mile of the proposed control of access highways. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110294, Draft EIS-316 pages, Appendices--1,049 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Hydrology KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615851?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 7 of 26] T2 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 900615849; 15052-4_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of between 17.4 and 21 miles of high-speed, four-lane arterial highway from the southern terminus of the current, four-lane arterial portion of Louisiana Highway (LA) 21 in Bush, Louisiana, to Interstate 12 (I-12) is proposed. The project area for LA 3241 is entirely within St. Tammany Parish and roughly bounded by LA 21, US 190, I-12, US 11, and LA 41. It encompasses approximately 245 square miles in area and includes the incorporated areas of Abita Springs, Pearl River, and portions of the cities of Slidell and Covington. Unincorporated areas such as Bush, Hickory, Talisheek, and Waldheim are included in the project area. LA 21 is a four-lane divided highway between the city of Bogalusa, in Washington Parish, and Bush, in St. Tammany Parish ending at its intersection with LA 41. The proposed I-12 to Bush highway would extend the four-lane section from that point to an existing interchange on I-12 by expanding an existing highway to four lanes or constructing a new alignment with a maximum right-of-way (ROW) width of 250 feet. The majority of the proposed highway would be designed as a rural arterial road with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The typical cross section would have two 12-foot travel lanes, an eight- to 10-foot outside shoulder, and a four-foot inside shoulder in each direction. The median width would vary depending on highway design class used ranging between 40 and 60 feet. The exception to that design could be as the proposed project transitions into existing roadways and where alternative alignments follow the existing LA 21. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development's preferred alignment, Alternative P, would begin at the intersection of LA 41 and LA 40 in Bush and proceed southward for 17.4 miles to LA 1088. The majority of the project would have a typical ROW width requirement of 250 feet. The northern 0.7 mile of the project would also have a ROW width of 250 feet. The exception to that design would be at the southern end of the project area where the last 1.5 miles would be designed as a suburban arterial with a ROW width of approximately 180 feet. The proposed route would use an abandoned railroad corridor from Bush to Talisheek, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles, before turning southwesterly for 13.3 miles on a new alignment to connect with LA 1088 north of I-12. Access for this route would be provided in Bush, at LA 435, at LA 36, and at the intersection with LA 1088. Crossings of existing highways would be at grade. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed highway would provide a four-lane highway connection for Washington and northern St. Tammany Parishes to I-12, with the goal of fulfilling regional transportation needs and stimulating economic growth and activity in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would replace existing land cover with impervious road surfaces and could result in the loss or degradation of fish and wildlife habitat. Under the preferred alternative, 20 acres of pine flatwoods habitat and 358 acres of wetlands within the ROW would be permanently lost; an additional 208 acres of wetlands outside the ROW could be impacted. Channel and overland flow could be impeded resulting in a change in the vegetative complex and increased duration of ponding and drought conditions. The amount of wetlands throughout the study area could be reduced. A noticeable increase in traffic noise would be expected for all receptors within one mile of the proposed control of access highways. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110294, Draft EIS-316 pages, Appendices--1,049 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Hydrology KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615849?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 6 of 26] T2 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 900615700; 15052-4_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of between 17.4 and 21 miles of high-speed, four-lane arterial highway from the southern terminus of the current, four-lane arterial portion of Louisiana Highway (LA) 21 in Bush, Louisiana, to Interstate 12 (I-12) is proposed. The project area for LA 3241 is entirely within St. Tammany Parish and roughly bounded by LA 21, US 190, I-12, US 11, and LA 41. It encompasses approximately 245 square miles in area and includes the incorporated areas of Abita Springs, Pearl River, and portions of the cities of Slidell and Covington. Unincorporated areas such as Bush, Hickory, Talisheek, and Waldheim are included in the project area. LA 21 is a four-lane divided highway between the city of Bogalusa, in Washington Parish, and Bush, in St. Tammany Parish ending at its intersection with LA 41. The proposed I-12 to Bush highway would extend the four-lane section from that point to an existing interchange on I-12 by expanding an existing highway to four lanes or constructing a new alignment with a maximum right-of-way (ROW) width of 250 feet. The majority of the proposed highway would be designed as a rural arterial road with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The typical cross section would have two 12-foot travel lanes, an eight- to 10-foot outside shoulder, and a four-foot inside shoulder in each direction. The median width would vary depending on highway design class used ranging between 40 and 60 feet. The exception to that design could be as the proposed project transitions into existing roadways and where alternative alignments follow the existing LA 21. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development's preferred alignment, Alternative P, would begin at the intersection of LA 41 and LA 40 in Bush and proceed southward for 17.4 miles to LA 1088. The majority of the project would have a typical ROW width requirement of 250 feet. The northern 0.7 mile of the project would also have a ROW width of 250 feet. The exception to that design would be at the southern end of the project area where the last 1.5 miles would be designed as a suburban arterial with a ROW width of approximately 180 feet. The proposed route would use an abandoned railroad corridor from Bush to Talisheek, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles, before turning southwesterly for 13.3 miles on a new alignment to connect with LA 1088 north of I-12. Access for this route would be provided in Bush, at LA 435, at LA 36, and at the intersection with LA 1088. Crossings of existing highways would be at grade. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed highway would provide a four-lane highway connection for Washington and northern St. Tammany Parishes to I-12, with the goal of fulfilling regional transportation needs and stimulating economic growth and activity in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would replace existing land cover with impervious road surfaces and could result in the loss or degradation of fish and wildlife habitat. Under the preferred alternative, 20 acres of pine flatwoods habitat and 358 acres of wetlands within the ROW would be permanently lost; an additional 208 acres of wetlands outside the ROW could be impacted. Channel and overland flow could be impeded resulting in a change in the vegetative complex and increased duration of ponding and drought conditions. The amount of wetlands throughout the study area could be reduced. A noticeable increase in traffic noise would be expected for all receptors within one mile of the proposed control of access highways. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110294, Draft EIS-316 pages, Appendices--1,049 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Hydrology KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615700?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 18 of 26] T2 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 900615696; 15052-4_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of between 17.4 and 21 miles of high-speed, four-lane arterial highway from the southern terminus of the current, four-lane arterial portion of Louisiana Highway (LA) 21 in Bush, Louisiana, to Interstate 12 (I-12) is proposed. The project area for LA 3241 is entirely within St. Tammany Parish and roughly bounded by LA 21, US 190, I-12, US 11, and LA 41. It encompasses approximately 245 square miles in area and includes the incorporated areas of Abita Springs, Pearl River, and portions of the cities of Slidell and Covington. Unincorporated areas such as Bush, Hickory, Talisheek, and Waldheim are included in the project area. LA 21 is a four-lane divided highway between the city of Bogalusa, in Washington Parish, and Bush, in St. Tammany Parish ending at its intersection with LA 41. The proposed I-12 to Bush highway would extend the four-lane section from that point to an existing interchange on I-12 by expanding an existing highway to four lanes or constructing a new alignment with a maximum right-of-way (ROW) width of 250 feet. The majority of the proposed highway would be designed as a rural arterial road with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The typical cross section would have two 12-foot travel lanes, an eight- to 10-foot outside shoulder, and a four-foot inside shoulder in each direction. The median width would vary depending on highway design class used ranging between 40 and 60 feet. The exception to that design could be as the proposed project transitions into existing roadways and where alternative alignments follow the existing LA 21. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development's preferred alignment, Alternative P, would begin at the intersection of LA 41 and LA 40 in Bush and proceed southward for 17.4 miles to LA 1088. The majority of the project would have a typical ROW width requirement of 250 feet. The northern 0.7 mile of the project would also have a ROW width of 250 feet. The exception to that design would be at the southern end of the project area where the last 1.5 miles would be designed as a suburban arterial with a ROW width of approximately 180 feet. The proposed route would use an abandoned railroad corridor from Bush to Talisheek, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles, before turning southwesterly for 13.3 miles on a new alignment to connect with LA 1088 north of I-12. Access for this route would be provided in Bush, at LA 435, at LA 36, and at the intersection with LA 1088. Crossings of existing highways would be at grade. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed highway would provide a four-lane highway connection for Washington and northern St. Tammany Parishes to I-12, with the goal of fulfilling regional transportation needs and stimulating economic growth and activity in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would replace existing land cover with impervious road surfaces and could result in the loss or degradation of fish and wildlife habitat. Under the preferred alternative, 20 acres of pine flatwoods habitat and 358 acres of wetlands within the ROW would be permanently lost; an additional 208 acres of wetlands outside the ROW could be impacted. Channel and overland flow could be impeded resulting in a change in the vegetative complex and increased duration of ponding and drought conditions. The amount of wetlands throughout the study area could be reduced. A noticeable increase in traffic noise would be expected for all receptors within one mile of the proposed control of access highways. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110294, Draft EIS-316 pages, Appendices--1,049 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Hydrology KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615696?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 5 of 26] T2 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 900615694; 15052-4_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of between 17.4 and 21 miles of high-speed, four-lane arterial highway from the southern terminus of the current, four-lane arterial portion of Louisiana Highway (LA) 21 in Bush, Louisiana, to Interstate 12 (I-12) is proposed. The project area for LA 3241 is entirely within St. Tammany Parish and roughly bounded by LA 21, US 190, I-12, US 11, and LA 41. It encompasses approximately 245 square miles in area and includes the incorporated areas of Abita Springs, Pearl River, and portions of the cities of Slidell and Covington. Unincorporated areas such as Bush, Hickory, Talisheek, and Waldheim are included in the project area. LA 21 is a four-lane divided highway between the city of Bogalusa, in Washington Parish, and Bush, in St. Tammany Parish ending at its intersection with LA 41. The proposed I-12 to Bush highway would extend the four-lane section from that point to an existing interchange on I-12 by expanding an existing highway to four lanes or constructing a new alignment with a maximum right-of-way (ROW) width of 250 feet. The majority of the proposed highway would be designed as a rural arterial road with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The typical cross section would have two 12-foot travel lanes, an eight- to 10-foot outside shoulder, and a four-foot inside shoulder in each direction. The median width would vary depending on highway design class used ranging between 40 and 60 feet. The exception to that design could be as the proposed project transitions into existing roadways and where alternative alignments follow the existing LA 21. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development's preferred alignment, Alternative P, would begin at the intersection of LA 41 and LA 40 in Bush and proceed southward for 17.4 miles to LA 1088. The majority of the project would have a typical ROW width requirement of 250 feet. The northern 0.7 mile of the project would also have a ROW width of 250 feet. The exception to that design would be at the southern end of the project area where the last 1.5 miles would be designed as a suburban arterial with a ROW width of approximately 180 feet. The proposed route would use an abandoned railroad corridor from Bush to Talisheek, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles, before turning southwesterly for 13.3 miles on a new alignment to connect with LA 1088 north of I-12. Access for this route would be provided in Bush, at LA 435, at LA 36, and at the intersection with LA 1088. Crossings of existing highways would be at grade. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed highway would provide a four-lane highway connection for Washington and northern St. Tammany Parishes to I-12, with the goal of fulfilling regional transportation needs and stimulating economic growth and activity in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would replace existing land cover with impervious road surfaces and could result in the loss or degradation of fish and wildlife habitat. Under the preferred alternative, 20 acres of pine flatwoods habitat and 358 acres of wetlands within the ROW would be permanently lost; an additional 208 acres of wetlands outside the ROW could be impacted. Channel and overland flow could be impeded resulting in a change in the vegetative complex and increased duration of ponding and drought conditions. The amount of wetlands throughout the study area could be reduced. A noticeable increase in traffic noise would be expected for all receptors within one mile of the proposed control of access highways. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110294, Draft EIS-316 pages, Appendices--1,049 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Hydrology KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615694?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 17 of 26] T2 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 900615691; 15052-4_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of between 17.4 and 21 miles of high-speed, four-lane arterial highway from the southern terminus of the current, four-lane arterial portion of Louisiana Highway (LA) 21 in Bush, Louisiana, to Interstate 12 (I-12) is proposed. The project area for LA 3241 is entirely within St. Tammany Parish and roughly bounded by LA 21, US 190, I-12, US 11, and LA 41. It encompasses approximately 245 square miles in area and includes the incorporated areas of Abita Springs, Pearl River, and portions of the cities of Slidell and Covington. Unincorporated areas such as Bush, Hickory, Talisheek, and Waldheim are included in the project area. LA 21 is a four-lane divided highway between the city of Bogalusa, in Washington Parish, and Bush, in St. Tammany Parish ending at its intersection with LA 41. The proposed I-12 to Bush highway would extend the four-lane section from that point to an existing interchange on I-12 by expanding an existing highway to four lanes or constructing a new alignment with a maximum right-of-way (ROW) width of 250 feet. The majority of the proposed highway would be designed as a rural arterial road with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The typical cross section would have two 12-foot travel lanes, an eight- to 10-foot outside shoulder, and a four-foot inside shoulder in each direction. The median width would vary depending on highway design class used ranging between 40 and 60 feet. The exception to that design could be as the proposed project transitions into existing roadways and where alternative alignments follow the existing LA 21. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development's preferred alignment, Alternative P, would begin at the intersection of LA 41 and LA 40 in Bush and proceed southward for 17.4 miles to LA 1088. The majority of the project would have a typical ROW width requirement of 250 feet. The northern 0.7 mile of the project would also have a ROW width of 250 feet. The exception to that design would be at the southern end of the project area where the last 1.5 miles would be designed as a suburban arterial with a ROW width of approximately 180 feet. The proposed route would use an abandoned railroad corridor from Bush to Talisheek, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles, before turning southwesterly for 13.3 miles on a new alignment to connect with LA 1088 north of I-12. Access for this route would be provided in Bush, at LA 435, at LA 36, and at the intersection with LA 1088. Crossings of existing highways would be at grade. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed highway would provide a four-lane highway connection for Washington and northern St. Tammany Parishes to I-12, with the goal of fulfilling regional transportation needs and stimulating economic growth and activity in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would replace existing land cover with impervious road surfaces and could result in the loss or degradation of fish and wildlife habitat. Under the preferred alternative, 20 acres of pine flatwoods habitat and 358 acres of wetlands within the ROW would be permanently lost; an additional 208 acres of wetlands outside the ROW could be impacted. Channel and overland flow could be impeded resulting in a change in the vegetative complex and increased duration of ponding and drought conditions. The amount of wetlands throughout the study area could be reduced. A noticeable increase in traffic noise would be expected for all receptors within one mile of the proposed control of access highways. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110294, Draft EIS-316 pages, Appendices--1,049 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Hydrology KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615691?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 4 of 26] T2 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 900615690; 15052-4_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of between 17.4 and 21 miles of high-speed, four-lane arterial highway from the southern terminus of the current, four-lane arterial portion of Louisiana Highway (LA) 21 in Bush, Louisiana, to Interstate 12 (I-12) is proposed. The project area for LA 3241 is entirely within St. Tammany Parish and roughly bounded by LA 21, US 190, I-12, US 11, and LA 41. It encompasses approximately 245 square miles in area and includes the incorporated areas of Abita Springs, Pearl River, and portions of the cities of Slidell and Covington. Unincorporated areas such as Bush, Hickory, Talisheek, and Waldheim are included in the project area. LA 21 is a four-lane divided highway between the city of Bogalusa, in Washington Parish, and Bush, in St. Tammany Parish ending at its intersection with LA 41. The proposed I-12 to Bush highway would extend the four-lane section from that point to an existing interchange on I-12 by expanding an existing highway to four lanes or constructing a new alignment with a maximum right-of-way (ROW) width of 250 feet. The majority of the proposed highway would be designed as a rural arterial road with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The typical cross section would have two 12-foot travel lanes, an eight- to 10-foot outside shoulder, and a four-foot inside shoulder in each direction. The median width would vary depending on highway design class used ranging between 40 and 60 feet. The exception to that design could be as the proposed project transitions into existing roadways and where alternative alignments follow the existing LA 21. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development's preferred alignment, Alternative P, would begin at the intersection of LA 41 and LA 40 in Bush and proceed southward for 17.4 miles to LA 1088. The majority of the project would have a typical ROW width requirement of 250 feet. The northern 0.7 mile of the project would also have a ROW width of 250 feet. The exception to that design would be at the southern end of the project area where the last 1.5 miles would be designed as a suburban arterial with a ROW width of approximately 180 feet. The proposed route would use an abandoned railroad corridor from Bush to Talisheek, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles, before turning southwesterly for 13.3 miles on a new alignment to connect with LA 1088 north of I-12. Access for this route would be provided in Bush, at LA 435, at LA 36, and at the intersection with LA 1088. Crossings of existing highways would be at grade. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed highway would provide a four-lane highway connection for Washington and northern St. Tammany Parishes to I-12, with the goal of fulfilling regional transportation needs and stimulating economic growth and activity in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would replace existing land cover with impervious road surfaces and could result in the loss or degradation of fish and wildlife habitat. Under the preferred alternative, 20 acres of pine flatwoods habitat and 358 acres of wetlands within the ROW would be permanently lost; an additional 208 acres of wetlands outside the ROW could be impacted. Channel and overland flow could be impeded resulting in a change in the vegetative complex and increased duration of ponding and drought conditions. The amount of wetlands throughout the study area could be reduced. A noticeable increase in traffic noise would be expected for all receptors within one mile of the proposed control of access highways. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110294, Draft EIS-316 pages, Appendices--1,049 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Hydrology KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615690?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 3 of 26] T2 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 900615684; 15052-4_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of between 17.4 and 21 miles of high-speed, four-lane arterial highway from the southern terminus of the current, four-lane arterial portion of Louisiana Highway (LA) 21 in Bush, Louisiana, to Interstate 12 (I-12) is proposed. The project area for LA 3241 is entirely within St. Tammany Parish and roughly bounded by LA 21, US 190, I-12, US 11, and LA 41. It encompasses approximately 245 square miles in area and includes the incorporated areas of Abita Springs, Pearl River, and portions of the cities of Slidell and Covington. Unincorporated areas such as Bush, Hickory, Talisheek, and Waldheim are included in the project area. LA 21 is a four-lane divided highway between the city of Bogalusa, in Washington Parish, and Bush, in St. Tammany Parish ending at its intersection with LA 41. The proposed I-12 to Bush highway would extend the four-lane section from that point to an existing interchange on I-12 by expanding an existing highway to four lanes or constructing a new alignment with a maximum right-of-way (ROW) width of 250 feet. The majority of the proposed highway would be designed as a rural arterial road with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The typical cross section would have two 12-foot travel lanes, an eight- to 10-foot outside shoulder, and a four-foot inside shoulder in each direction. The median width would vary depending on highway design class used ranging between 40 and 60 feet. The exception to that design could be as the proposed project transitions into existing roadways and where alternative alignments follow the existing LA 21. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development's preferred alignment, Alternative P, would begin at the intersection of LA 41 and LA 40 in Bush and proceed southward for 17.4 miles to LA 1088. The majority of the project would have a typical ROW width requirement of 250 feet. The northern 0.7 mile of the project would also have a ROW width of 250 feet. The exception to that design would be at the southern end of the project area where the last 1.5 miles would be designed as a suburban arterial with a ROW width of approximately 180 feet. The proposed route would use an abandoned railroad corridor from Bush to Talisheek, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles, before turning southwesterly for 13.3 miles on a new alignment to connect with LA 1088 north of I-12. Access for this route would be provided in Bush, at LA 435, at LA 36, and at the intersection with LA 1088. Crossings of existing highways would be at grade. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed highway would provide a four-lane highway connection for Washington and northern St. Tammany Parishes to I-12, with the goal of fulfilling regional transportation needs and stimulating economic growth and activity in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would replace existing land cover with impervious road surfaces and could result in the loss or degradation of fish and wildlife habitat. Under the preferred alternative, 20 acres of pine flatwoods habitat and 358 acres of wetlands within the ROW would be permanently lost; an additional 208 acres of wetlands outside the ROW could be impacted. Channel and overland flow could be impeded resulting in a change in the vegetative complex and increased duration of ponding and drought conditions. The amount of wetlands throughout the study area could be reduced. A noticeable increase in traffic noise would be expected for all receptors within one mile of the proposed control of access highways. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110294, Draft EIS-316 pages, Appendices--1,049 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Hydrology KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615684?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 2 of 26] T2 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 900615681; 15052-4_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of between 17.4 and 21 miles of high-speed, four-lane arterial highway from the southern terminus of the current, four-lane arterial portion of Louisiana Highway (LA) 21 in Bush, Louisiana, to Interstate 12 (I-12) is proposed. The project area for LA 3241 is entirely within St. Tammany Parish and roughly bounded by LA 21, US 190, I-12, US 11, and LA 41. It encompasses approximately 245 square miles in area and includes the incorporated areas of Abita Springs, Pearl River, and portions of the cities of Slidell and Covington. Unincorporated areas such as Bush, Hickory, Talisheek, and Waldheim are included in the project area. LA 21 is a four-lane divided highway between the city of Bogalusa, in Washington Parish, and Bush, in St. Tammany Parish ending at its intersection with LA 41. The proposed I-12 to Bush highway would extend the four-lane section from that point to an existing interchange on I-12 by expanding an existing highway to four lanes or constructing a new alignment with a maximum right-of-way (ROW) width of 250 feet. The majority of the proposed highway would be designed as a rural arterial road with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The typical cross section would have two 12-foot travel lanes, an eight- to 10-foot outside shoulder, and a four-foot inside shoulder in each direction. The median width would vary depending on highway design class used ranging between 40 and 60 feet. The exception to that design could be as the proposed project transitions into existing roadways and where alternative alignments follow the existing LA 21. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development's preferred alignment, Alternative P, would begin at the intersection of LA 41 and LA 40 in Bush and proceed southward for 17.4 miles to LA 1088. The majority of the project would have a typical ROW width requirement of 250 feet. The northern 0.7 mile of the project would also have a ROW width of 250 feet. The exception to that design would be at the southern end of the project area where the last 1.5 miles would be designed as a suburban arterial with a ROW width of approximately 180 feet. The proposed route would use an abandoned railroad corridor from Bush to Talisheek, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles, before turning southwesterly for 13.3 miles on a new alignment to connect with LA 1088 north of I-12. Access for this route would be provided in Bush, at LA 435, at LA 36, and at the intersection with LA 1088. Crossings of existing highways would be at grade. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed highway would provide a four-lane highway connection for Washington and northern St. Tammany Parishes to I-12, with the goal of fulfilling regional transportation needs and stimulating economic growth and activity in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would replace existing land cover with impervious road surfaces and could result in the loss or degradation of fish and wildlife habitat. Under the preferred alternative, 20 acres of pine flatwoods habitat and 358 acres of wetlands within the ROW would be permanently lost; an additional 208 acres of wetlands outside the ROW could be impacted. Channel and overland flow could be impeded resulting in a change in the vegetative complex and increased duration of ponding and drought conditions. The amount of wetlands throughout the study area could be reduced. A noticeable increase in traffic noise would be expected for all receptors within one mile of the proposed control of access highways. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110294, Draft EIS-316 pages, Appendices--1,049 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Hydrology KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615681?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 1 of 26] T2 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 900615677; 15052-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of between 17.4 and 21 miles of high-speed, four-lane arterial highway from the southern terminus of the current, four-lane arterial portion of Louisiana Highway (LA) 21 in Bush, Louisiana, to Interstate 12 (I-12) is proposed. The project area for LA 3241 is entirely within St. Tammany Parish and roughly bounded by LA 21, US 190, I-12, US 11, and LA 41. It encompasses approximately 245 square miles in area and includes the incorporated areas of Abita Springs, Pearl River, and portions of the cities of Slidell and Covington. Unincorporated areas such as Bush, Hickory, Talisheek, and Waldheim are included in the project area. LA 21 is a four-lane divided highway between the city of Bogalusa, in Washington Parish, and Bush, in St. Tammany Parish ending at its intersection with LA 41. The proposed I-12 to Bush highway would extend the four-lane section from that point to an existing interchange on I-12 by expanding an existing highway to four lanes or constructing a new alignment with a maximum right-of-way (ROW) width of 250 feet. The majority of the proposed highway would be designed as a rural arterial road with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The typical cross section would have two 12-foot travel lanes, an eight- to 10-foot outside shoulder, and a four-foot inside shoulder in each direction. The median width would vary depending on highway design class used ranging between 40 and 60 feet. The exception to that design could be as the proposed project transitions into existing roadways and where alternative alignments follow the existing LA 21. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development's preferred alignment, Alternative P, would begin at the intersection of LA 41 and LA 40 in Bush and proceed southward for 17.4 miles to LA 1088. The majority of the project would have a typical ROW width requirement of 250 feet. The northern 0.7 mile of the project would also have a ROW width of 250 feet. The exception to that design would be at the southern end of the project area where the last 1.5 miles would be designed as a suburban arterial with a ROW width of approximately 180 feet. The proposed route would use an abandoned railroad corridor from Bush to Talisheek, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles, before turning southwesterly for 13.3 miles on a new alignment to connect with LA 1088 north of I-12. Access for this route would be provided in Bush, at LA 435, at LA 36, and at the intersection with LA 1088. Crossings of existing highways would be at grade. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed highway would provide a four-lane highway connection for Washington and northern St. Tammany Parishes to I-12, with the goal of fulfilling regional transportation needs and stimulating economic growth and activity in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would replace existing land cover with impervious road surfaces and could result in the loss or degradation of fish and wildlife habitat. Under the preferred alternative, 20 acres of pine flatwoods habitat and 358 acres of wetlands within the ROW would be permanently lost; an additional 208 acres of wetlands outside the ROW could be impacted. Channel and overland flow could be impeded resulting in a change in the vegetative complex and increased duration of ponding and drought conditions. The amount of wetlands throughout the study area could be reduced. A noticeable increase in traffic noise would be expected for all receptors within one mile of the proposed control of access highways. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110294, Draft EIS-316 pages, Appendices--1,049 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Hydrology KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615677?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 13 of 26] T2 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 900615623; 15052-4_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of between 17.4 and 21 miles of high-speed, four-lane arterial highway from the southern terminus of the current, four-lane arterial portion of Louisiana Highway (LA) 21 in Bush, Louisiana, to Interstate 12 (I-12) is proposed. The project area for LA 3241 is entirely within St. Tammany Parish and roughly bounded by LA 21, US 190, I-12, US 11, and LA 41. It encompasses approximately 245 square miles in area and includes the incorporated areas of Abita Springs, Pearl River, and portions of the cities of Slidell and Covington. Unincorporated areas such as Bush, Hickory, Talisheek, and Waldheim are included in the project area. LA 21 is a four-lane divided highway between the city of Bogalusa, in Washington Parish, and Bush, in St. Tammany Parish ending at its intersection with LA 41. The proposed I-12 to Bush highway would extend the four-lane section from that point to an existing interchange on I-12 by expanding an existing highway to four lanes or constructing a new alignment with a maximum right-of-way (ROW) width of 250 feet. The majority of the proposed highway would be designed as a rural arterial road with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The typical cross section would have two 12-foot travel lanes, an eight- to 10-foot outside shoulder, and a four-foot inside shoulder in each direction. The median width would vary depending on highway design class used ranging between 40 and 60 feet. The exception to that design could be as the proposed project transitions into existing roadways and where alternative alignments follow the existing LA 21. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development's preferred alignment, Alternative P, would begin at the intersection of LA 41 and LA 40 in Bush and proceed southward for 17.4 miles to LA 1088. The majority of the project would have a typical ROW width requirement of 250 feet. The northern 0.7 mile of the project would also have a ROW width of 250 feet. The exception to that design would be at the southern end of the project area where the last 1.5 miles would be designed as a suburban arterial with a ROW width of approximately 180 feet. The proposed route would use an abandoned railroad corridor from Bush to Talisheek, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles, before turning southwesterly for 13.3 miles on a new alignment to connect with LA 1088 north of I-12. Access for this route would be provided in Bush, at LA 435, at LA 36, and at the intersection with LA 1088. Crossings of existing highways would be at grade. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed highway would provide a four-lane highway connection for Washington and northern St. Tammany Parishes to I-12, with the goal of fulfilling regional transportation needs and stimulating economic growth and activity in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would replace existing land cover with impervious road surfaces and could result in the loss or degradation of fish and wildlife habitat. Under the preferred alternative, 20 acres of pine flatwoods habitat and 358 acres of wetlands within the ROW would be permanently lost; an additional 208 acres of wetlands outside the ROW could be impacted. Channel and overland flow could be impeded resulting in a change in the vegetative complex and increased duration of ponding and drought conditions. The amount of wetlands throughout the study area could be reduced. A noticeable increase in traffic noise would be expected for all receptors within one mile of the proposed control of access highways. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110294, Draft EIS-316 pages, Appendices--1,049 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Hydrology KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615623?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 12 of 26] T2 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 900615616; 15052-4_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of between 17.4 and 21 miles of high-speed, four-lane arterial highway from the southern terminus of the current, four-lane arterial portion of Louisiana Highway (LA) 21 in Bush, Louisiana, to Interstate 12 (I-12) is proposed. The project area for LA 3241 is entirely within St. Tammany Parish and roughly bounded by LA 21, US 190, I-12, US 11, and LA 41. It encompasses approximately 245 square miles in area and includes the incorporated areas of Abita Springs, Pearl River, and portions of the cities of Slidell and Covington. Unincorporated areas such as Bush, Hickory, Talisheek, and Waldheim are included in the project area. LA 21 is a four-lane divided highway between the city of Bogalusa, in Washington Parish, and Bush, in St. Tammany Parish ending at its intersection with LA 41. The proposed I-12 to Bush highway would extend the four-lane section from that point to an existing interchange on I-12 by expanding an existing highway to four lanes or constructing a new alignment with a maximum right-of-way (ROW) width of 250 feet. The majority of the proposed highway would be designed as a rural arterial road with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The typical cross section would have two 12-foot travel lanes, an eight- to 10-foot outside shoulder, and a four-foot inside shoulder in each direction. The median width would vary depending on highway design class used ranging between 40 and 60 feet. The exception to that design could be as the proposed project transitions into existing roadways and where alternative alignments follow the existing LA 21. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development's preferred alignment, Alternative P, would begin at the intersection of LA 41 and LA 40 in Bush and proceed southward for 17.4 miles to LA 1088. The majority of the project would have a typical ROW width requirement of 250 feet. The northern 0.7 mile of the project would also have a ROW width of 250 feet. The exception to that design would be at the southern end of the project area where the last 1.5 miles would be designed as a suburban arterial with a ROW width of approximately 180 feet. The proposed route would use an abandoned railroad corridor from Bush to Talisheek, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles, before turning southwesterly for 13.3 miles on a new alignment to connect with LA 1088 north of I-12. Access for this route would be provided in Bush, at LA 435, at LA 36, and at the intersection with LA 1088. Crossings of existing highways would be at grade. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed highway would provide a four-lane highway connection for Washington and northern St. Tammany Parishes to I-12, with the goal of fulfilling regional transportation needs and stimulating economic growth and activity in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would replace existing land cover with impervious road surfaces and could result in the loss or degradation of fish and wildlife habitat. Under the preferred alternative, 20 acres of pine flatwoods habitat and 358 acres of wetlands within the ROW would be permanently lost; an additional 208 acres of wetlands outside the ROW could be impacted. Channel and overland flow could be impeded resulting in a change in the vegetative complex and increased duration of ponding and drought conditions. The amount of wetlands throughout the study area could be reduced. A noticeable increase in traffic noise would be expected for all receptors within one mile of the proposed control of access highways. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110294, Draft EIS-316 pages, Appendices--1,049 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Hydrology KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615616?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 11 of 26] T2 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 900615611; 15052-4_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of between 17.4 and 21 miles of high-speed, four-lane arterial highway from the southern terminus of the current, four-lane arterial portion of Louisiana Highway (LA) 21 in Bush, Louisiana, to Interstate 12 (I-12) is proposed. The project area for LA 3241 is entirely within St. Tammany Parish and roughly bounded by LA 21, US 190, I-12, US 11, and LA 41. It encompasses approximately 245 square miles in area and includes the incorporated areas of Abita Springs, Pearl River, and portions of the cities of Slidell and Covington. Unincorporated areas such as Bush, Hickory, Talisheek, and Waldheim are included in the project area. LA 21 is a four-lane divided highway between the city of Bogalusa, in Washington Parish, and Bush, in St. Tammany Parish ending at its intersection with LA 41. The proposed I-12 to Bush highway would extend the four-lane section from that point to an existing interchange on I-12 by expanding an existing highway to four lanes or constructing a new alignment with a maximum right-of-way (ROW) width of 250 feet. The majority of the proposed highway would be designed as a rural arterial road with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The typical cross section would have two 12-foot travel lanes, an eight- to 10-foot outside shoulder, and a four-foot inside shoulder in each direction. The median width would vary depending on highway design class used ranging between 40 and 60 feet. The exception to that design could be as the proposed project transitions into existing roadways and where alternative alignments follow the existing LA 21. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development's preferred alignment, Alternative P, would begin at the intersection of LA 41 and LA 40 in Bush and proceed southward for 17.4 miles to LA 1088. The majority of the project would have a typical ROW width requirement of 250 feet. The northern 0.7 mile of the project would also have a ROW width of 250 feet. The exception to that design would be at the southern end of the project area where the last 1.5 miles would be designed as a suburban arterial with a ROW width of approximately 180 feet. The proposed route would use an abandoned railroad corridor from Bush to Talisheek, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles, before turning southwesterly for 13.3 miles on a new alignment to connect with LA 1088 north of I-12. Access for this route would be provided in Bush, at LA 435, at LA 36, and at the intersection with LA 1088. Crossings of existing highways would be at grade. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed highway would provide a four-lane highway connection for Washington and northern St. Tammany Parishes to I-12, with the goal of fulfilling regional transportation needs and stimulating economic growth and activity in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would replace existing land cover with impervious road surfaces and could result in the loss or degradation of fish and wildlife habitat. Under the preferred alternative, 20 acres of pine flatwoods habitat and 358 acres of wetlands within the ROW would be permanently lost; an additional 208 acres of wetlands outside the ROW could be impacted. Channel and overland flow could be impeded resulting in a change in the vegetative complex and increased duration of ponding and drought conditions. The amount of wetlands throughout the study area could be reduced. A noticeable increase in traffic noise would be expected for all receptors within one mile of the proposed control of access highways. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110294, Draft EIS-316 pages, Appendices--1,049 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Hydrology KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615611?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 10 of 26] T2 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 900615607; 15052-4_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of between 17.4 and 21 miles of high-speed, four-lane arterial highway from the southern terminus of the current, four-lane arterial portion of Louisiana Highway (LA) 21 in Bush, Louisiana, to Interstate 12 (I-12) is proposed. The project area for LA 3241 is entirely within St. Tammany Parish and roughly bounded by LA 21, US 190, I-12, US 11, and LA 41. It encompasses approximately 245 square miles in area and includes the incorporated areas of Abita Springs, Pearl River, and portions of the cities of Slidell and Covington. Unincorporated areas such as Bush, Hickory, Talisheek, and Waldheim are included in the project area. LA 21 is a four-lane divided highway between the city of Bogalusa, in Washington Parish, and Bush, in St. Tammany Parish ending at its intersection with LA 41. The proposed I-12 to Bush highway would extend the four-lane section from that point to an existing interchange on I-12 by expanding an existing highway to four lanes or constructing a new alignment with a maximum right-of-way (ROW) width of 250 feet. The majority of the proposed highway would be designed as a rural arterial road with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The typical cross section would have two 12-foot travel lanes, an eight- to 10-foot outside shoulder, and a four-foot inside shoulder in each direction. The median width would vary depending on highway design class used ranging between 40 and 60 feet. The exception to that design could be as the proposed project transitions into existing roadways and where alternative alignments follow the existing LA 21. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development's preferred alignment, Alternative P, would begin at the intersection of LA 41 and LA 40 in Bush and proceed southward for 17.4 miles to LA 1088. The majority of the project would have a typical ROW width requirement of 250 feet. The northern 0.7 mile of the project would also have a ROW width of 250 feet. The exception to that design would be at the southern end of the project area where the last 1.5 miles would be designed as a suburban arterial with a ROW width of approximately 180 feet. The proposed route would use an abandoned railroad corridor from Bush to Talisheek, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles, before turning southwesterly for 13.3 miles on a new alignment to connect with LA 1088 north of I-12. Access for this route would be provided in Bush, at LA 435, at LA 36, and at the intersection with LA 1088. Crossings of existing highways would be at grade. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed highway would provide a four-lane highway connection for Washington and northern St. Tammany Parishes to I-12, with the goal of fulfilling regional transportation needs and stimulating economic growth and activity in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would replace existing land cover with impervious road surfaces and could result in the loss or degradation of fish and wildlife habitat. Under the preferred alternative, 20 acres of pine flatwoods habitat and 358 acres of wetlands within the ROW would be permanently lost; an additional 208 acres of wetlands outside the ROW could be impacted. Channel and overland flow could be impeded resulting in a change in the vegetative complex and increased duration of ponding and drought conditions. The amount of wetlands throughout the study area could be reduced. A noticeable increase in traffic noise would be expected for all receptors within one mile of the proposed control of access highways. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110294, Draft EIS-316 pages, Appendices--1,049 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Hydrology KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615607?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 9 of 26] T2 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 900615602; 15052-4_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of between 17.4 and 21 miles of high-speed, four-lane arterial highway from the southern terminus of the current, four-lane arterial portion of Louisiana Highway (LA) 21 in Bush, Louisiana, to Interstate 12 (I-12) is proposed. The project area for LA 3241 is entirely within St. Tammany Parish and roughly bounded by LA 21, US 190, I-12, US 11, and LA 41. It encompasses approximately 245 square miles in area and includes the incorporated areas of Abita Springs, Pearl River, and portions of the cities of Slidell and Covington. Unincorporated areas such as Bush, Hickory, Talisheek, and Waldheim are included in the project area. LA 21 is a four-lane divided highway between the city of Bogalusa, in Washington Parish, and Bush, in St. Tammany Parish ending at its intersection with LA 41. The proposed I-12 to Bush highway would extend the four-lane section from that point to an existing interchange on I-12 by expanding an existing highway to four lanes or constructing a new alignment with a maximum right-of-way (ROW) width of 250 feet. The majority of the proposed highway would be designed as a rural arterial road with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The typical cross section would have two 12-foot travel lanes, an eight- to 10-foot outside shoulder, and a four-foot inside shoulder in each direction. The median width would vary depending on highway design class used ranging between 40 and 60 feet. The exception to that design could be as the proposed project transitions into existing roadways and where alternative alignments follow the existing LA 21. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development's preferred alignment, Alternative P, would begin at the intersection of LA 41 and LA 40 in Bush and proceed southward for 17.4 miles to LA 1088. The majority of the project would have a typical ROW width requirement of 250 feet. The northern 0.7 mile of the project would also have a ROW width of 250 feet. The exception to that design would be at the southern end of the project area where the last 1.5 miles would be designed as a suburban arterial with a ROW width of approximately 180 feet. The proposed route would use an abandoned railroad corridor from Bush to Talisheek, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles, before turning southwesterly for 13.3 miles on a new alignment to connect with LA 1088 north of I-12. Access for this route would be provided in Bush, at LA 435, at LA 36, and at the intersection with LA 1088. Crossings of existing highways would be at grade. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed highway would provide a four-lane highway connection for Washington and northern St. Tammany Parishes to I-12, with the goal of fulfilling regional transportation needs and stimulating economic growth and activity in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would replace existing land cover with impervious road surfaces and could result in the loss or degradation of fish and wildlife habitat. Under the preferred alternative, 20 acres of pine flatwoods habitat and 358 acres of wetlands within the ROW would be permanently lost; an additional 208 acres of wetlands outside the ROW could be impacted. Channel and overland flow could be impeded resulting in a change in the vegetative complex and increased duration of ponding and drought conditions. The amount of wetlands throughout the study area could be reduced. A noticeable increase in traffic noise would be expected for all receptors within one mile of the proposed control of access highways. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110294, Draft EIS-316 pages, Appendices--1,049 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Hydrology KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615602?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 8 of 26] T2 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 900615595; 15052-4_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of between 17.4 and 21 miles of high-speed, four-lane arterial highway from the southern terminus of the current, four-lane arterial portion of Louisiana Highway (LA) 21 in Bush, Louisiana, to Interstate 12 (I-12) is proposed. The project area for LA 3241 is entirely within St. Tammany Parish and roughly bounded by LA 21, US 190, I-12, US 11, and LA 41. It encompasses approximately 245 square miles in area and includes the incorporated areas of Abita Springs, Pearl River, and portions of the cities of Slidell and Covington. Unincorporated areas such as Bush, Hickory, Talisheek, and Waldheim are included in the project area. LA 21 is a four-lane divided highway between the city of Bogalusa, in Washington Parish, and Bush, in St. Tammany Parish ending at its intersection with LA 41. The proposed I-12 to Bush highway would extend the four-lane section from that point to an existing interchange on I-12 by expanding an existing highway to four lanes or constructing a new alignment with a maximum right-of-way (ROW) width of 250 feet. The majority of the proposed highway would be designed as a rural arterial road with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The typical cross section would have two 12-foot travel lanes, an eight- to 10-foot outside shoulder, and a four-foot inside shoulder in each direction. The median width would vary depending on highway design class used ranging between 40 and 60 feet. The exception to that design could be as the proposed project transitions into existing roadways and where alternative alignments follow the existing LA 21. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development's preferred alignment, Alternative P, would begin at the intersection of LA 41 and LA 40 in Bush and proceed southward for 17.4 miles to LA 1088. The majority of the project would have a typical ROW width requirement of 250 feet. The northern 0.7 mile of the project would also have a ROW width of 250 feet. The exception to that design would be at the southern end of the project area where the last 1.5 miles would be designed as a suburban arterial with a ROW width of approximately 180 feet. The proposed route would use an abandoned railroad corridor from Bush to Talisheek, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles, before turning southwesterly for 13.3 miles on a new alignment to connect with LA 1088 north of I-12. Access for this route would be provided in Bush, at LA 435, at LA 36, and at the intersection with LA 1088. Crossings of existing highways would be at grade. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed highway would provide a four-lane highway connection for Washington and northern St. Tammany Parishes to I-12, with the goal of fulfilling regional transportation needs and stimulating economic growth and activity in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would replace existing land cover with impervious road surfaces and could result in the loss or degradation of fish and wildlife habitat. Under the preferred alternative, 20 acres of pine flatwoods habitat and 358 acres of wetlands within the ROW would be permanently lost; an additional 208 acres of wetlands outside the ROW could be impacted. Channel and overland flow could be impeded resulting in a change in the vegetative complex and increased duration of ponding and drought conditions. The amount of wetlands throughout the study area could be reduced. A noticeable increase in traffic noise would be expected for all receptors within one mile of the proposed control of access highways. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110294, Draft EIS-316 pages, Appendices--1,049 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Hydrology KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615595?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 24 of 26] T2 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 900615461; 15052-4_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of between 17.4 and 21 miles of high-speed, four-lane arterial highway from the southern terminus of the current, four-lane arterial portion of Louisiana Highway (LA) 21 in Bush, Louisiana, to Interstate 12 (I-12) is proposed. The project area for LA 3241 is entirely within St. Tammany Parish and roughly bounded by LA 21, US 190, I-12, US 11, and LA 41. It encompasses approximately 245 square miles in area and includes the incorporated areas of Abita Springs, Pearl River, and portions of the cities of Slidell and Covington. Unincorporated areas such as Bush, Hickory, Talisheek, and Waldheim are included in the project area. LA 21 is a four-lane divided highway between the city of Bogalusa, in Washington Parish, and Bush, in St. Tammany Parish ending at its intersection with LA 41. The proposed I-12 to Bush highway would extend the four-lane section from that point to an existing interchange on I-12 by expanding an existing highway to four lanes or constructing a new alignment with a maximum right-of-way (ROW) width of 250 feet. The majority of the proposed highway would be designed as a rural arterial road with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The typical cross section would have two 12-foot travel lanes, an eight- to 10-foot outside shoulder, and a four-foot inside shoulder in each direction. The median width would vary depending on highway design class used ranging between 40 and 60 feet. The exception to that design could be as the proposed project transitions into existing roadways and where alternative alignments follow the existing LA 21. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development's preferred alignment, Alternative P, would begin at the intersection of LA 41 and LA 40 in Bush and proceed southward for 17.4 miles to LA 1088. The majority of the project would have a typical ROW width requirement of 250 feet. The northern 0.7 mile of the project would also have a ROW width of 250 feet. The exception to that design would be at the southern end of the project area where the last 1.5 miles would be designed as a suburban arterial with a ROW width of approximately 180 feet. The proposed route would use an abandoned railroad corridor from Bush to Talisheek, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles, before turning southwesterly for 13.3 miles on a new alignment to connect with LA 1088 north of I-12. Access for this route would be provided in Bush, at LA 435, at LA 36, and at the intersection with LA 1088. Crossings of existing highways would be at grade. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed highway would provide a four-lane highway connection for Washington and northern St. Tammany Parishes to I-12, with the goal of fulfilling regional transportation needs and stimulating economic growth and activity in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would replace existing land cover with impervious road surfaces and could result in the loss or degradation of fish and wildlife habitat. Under the preferred alternative, 20 acres of pine flatwoods habitat and 358 acres of wetlands within the ROW would be permanently lost; an additional 208 acres of wetlands outside the ROW could be impacted. Channel and overland flow could be impeded resulting in a change in the vegetative complex and increased duration of ponding and drought conditions. The amount of wetlands throughout the study area could be reduced. A noticeable increase in traffic noise would be expected for all receptors within one mile of the proposed control of access highways. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110294, Draft EIS-316 pages, Appendices--1,049 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Hydrology KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615461?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 16 of 26] T2 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 900615358; 15052-4_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of between 17.4 and 21 miles of high-speed, four-lane arterial highway from the southern terminus of the current, four-lane arterial portion of Louisiana Highway (LA) 21 in Bush, Louisiana, to Interstate 12 (I-12) is proposed. The project area for LA 3241 is entirely within St. Tammany Parish and roughly bounded by LA 21, US 190, I-12, US 11, and LA 41. It encompasses approximately 245 square miles in area and includes the incorporated areas of Abita Springs, Pearl River, and portions of the cities of Slidell and Covington. Unincorporated areas such as Bush, Hickory, Talisheek, and Waldheim are included in the project area. LA 21 is a four-lane divided highway between the city of Bogalusa, in Washington Parish, and Bush, in St. Tammany Parish ending at its intersection with LA 41. The proposed I-12 to Bush highway would extend the four-lane section from that point to an existing interchange on I-12 by expanding an existing highway to four lanes or constructing a new alignment with a maximum right-of-way (ROW) width of 250 feet. The majority of the proposed highway would be designed as a rural arterial road with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The typical cross section would have two 12-foot travel lanes, an eight- to 10-foot outside shoulder, and a four-foot inside shoulder in each direction. The median width would vary depending on highway design class used ranging between 40 and 60 feet. The exception to that design could be as the proposed project transitions into existing roadways and where alternative alignments follow the existing LA 21. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development's preferred alignment, Alternative P, would begin at the intersection of LA 41 and LA 40 in Bush and proceed southward for 17.4 miles to LA 1088. The majority of the project would have a typical ROW width requirement of 250 feet. The northern 0.7 mile of the project would also have a ROW width of 250 feet. The exception to that design would be at the southern end of the project area where the last 1.5 miles would be designed as a suburban arterial with a ROW width of approximately 180 feet. The proposed route would use an abandoned railroad corridor from Bush to Talisheek, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles, before turning southwesterly for 13.3 miles on a new alignment to connect with LA 1088 north of I-12. Access for this route would be provided in Bush, at LA 435, at LA 36, and at the intersection with LA 1088. Crossings of existing highways would be at grade. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed highway would provide a four-lane highway connection for Washington and northern St. Tammany Parishes to I-12, with the goal of fulfilling regional transportation needs and stimulating economic growth and activity in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would replace existing land cover with impervious road surfaces and could result in the loss or degradation of fish and wildlife habitat. Under the preferred alternative, 20 acres of pine flatwoods habitat and 358 acres of wetlands within the ROW would be permanently lost; an additional 208 acres of wetlands outside the ROW could be impacted. Channel and overland flow could be impeded resulting in a change in the vegetative complex and increased duration of ponding and drought conditions. The amount of wetlands throughout the study area could be reduced. A noticeable increase in traffic noise would be expected for all receptors within one mile of the proposed control of access highways. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110294, Draft EIS-316 pages, Appendices--1,049 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Hydrology KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615358?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 15 of 26] T2 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 900615353; 15052-4_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of between 17.4 and 21 miles of high-speed, four-lane arterial highway from the southern terminus of the current, four-lane arterial portion of Louisiana Highway (LA) 21 in Bush, Louisiana, to Interstate 12 (I-12) is proposed. The project area for LA 3241 is entirely within St. Tammany Parish and roughly bounded by LA 21, US 190, I-12, US 11, and LA 41. It encompasses approximately 245 square miles in area and includes the incorporated areas of Abita Springs, Pearl River, and portions of the cities of Slidell and Covington. Unincorporated areas such as Bush, Hickory, Talisheek, and Waldheim are included in the project area. LA 21 is a four-lane divided highway between the city of Bogalusa, in Washington Parish, and Bush, in St. Tammany Parish ending at its intersection with LA 41. The proposed I-12 to Bush highway would extend the four-lane section from that point to an existing interchange on I-12 by expanding an existing highway to four lanes or constructing a new alignment with a maximum right-of-way (ROW) width of 250 feet. The majority of the proposed highway would be designed as a rural arterial road with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The typical cross section would have two 12-foot travel lanes, an eight- to 10-foot outside shoulder, and a four-foot inside shoulder in each direction. The median width would vary depending on highway design class used ranging between 40 and 60 feet. The exception to that design could be as the proposed project transitions into existing roadways and where alternative alignments follow the existing LA 21. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development's preferred alignment, Alternative P, would begin at the intersection of LA 41 and LA 40 in Bush and proceed southward for 17.4 miles to LA 1088. The majority of the project would have a typical ROW width requirement of 250 feet. The northern 0.7 mile of the project would also have a ROW width of 250 feet. The exception to that design would be at the southern end of the project area where the last 1.5 miles would be designed as a suburban arterial with a ROW width of approximately 180 feet. The proposed route would use an abandoned railroad corridor from Bush to Talisheek, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles, before turning southwesterly for 13.3 miles on a new alignment to connect with LA 1088 north of I-12. Access for this route would be provided in Bush, at LA 435, at LA 36, and at the intersection with LA 1088. Crossings of existing highways would be at grade. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed highway would provide a four-lane highway connection for Washington and northern St. Tammany Parishes to I-12, with the goal of fulfilling regional transportation needs and stimulating economic growth and activity in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would replace existing land cover with impervious road surfaces and could result in the loss or degradation of fish and wildlife habitat. Under the preferred alternative, 20 acres of pine flatwoods habitat and 358 acres of wetlands within the ROW would be permanently lost; an additional 208 acres of wetlands outside the ROW could be impacted. Channel and overland flow could be impeded resulting in a change in the vegetative complex and increased duration of ponding and drought conditions. The amount of wetlands throughout the study area could be reduced. A noticeable increase in traffic noise would be expected for all receptors within one mile of the proposed control of access highways. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110294, Draft EIS-316 pages, Appendices--1,049 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Hydrology KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615353?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA. [Part 6 of 6] T2 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA. AN - 900615349; 15055-7_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of incidental take permits (ITPs) for the endangered Alabama beach mouse (ABM) to two applicants intending to develop condominiums within a 205.6-acre site on the Fort Morgan Peninsula in Baldwin County, Alabama is proposed. The Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands developments have been proposed by Fort Morgan Paradise Joint Venture and Gulf Highlands Condominiums, LLC, respectively. Two ITPs were issued in 2007 to address dune habitat of the ABM, but these ITPs, together with the supporting habitat conservation plan (HCP) and applications, were withdrawn by the permittees in December, 2008 after legal challenges and court rulings. The applicants revised their plans and repositioned the condominium projects 580 to 600 feet further inland to avoid habitats considered essential for the ABMs survival. The permittees own 181.9 acres within the development site and the remaining 23.7 acres are on Baldwin County public road rights-of-way. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the revised preferred alternative (Alternative 3), the Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands condominium complexes would be located on the eastern and western sides of Gulf Way Drive, respectively, and the north side of Avenue B and the tertiary dune system. The preferred development plans, as described in the August 2009 HCP, would include seven multistory condominium towers, two double-deck parking garages, four dune walkovers up to 12 feet wide, amenities, and a commercial development on the northeast property boundary. Except for the dune walkovers (1.6 acres) and a recreational facility (0.1 acre) which would extend into frontal and/or tertiary dunes, the 38.66-acre developed footprint would be located within interior scrub habitat. Under the revised joint HCP, 135.2 acres of the remaining 167 acres of undeveloped lands on the project site would be preserved in perpetuity via conservation easement for the benefit of the ABM. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would protect critical habitat for the endangered mouse species while allowing for residential and recreational development of the site. The permittees would dedicate 135.2 acres of coastal dune habitat into conservation status via covenants, conditions and restrictions attached to the property, and conditions of any ITP that may be issued. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would permanently impact 38.7 acres of scrub habitat and 1.36 acres of seasonally-inundated palustrine emergent wetlands. Increased human presence on the beach could result in disturbance to nesting sea turtles. The development would be constructed in an area under seasonal threat of hurricane landfall. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the original draft and final EISs, see 06-0434D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 07-0146F, Volume 31, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110297, Final EIS--90 pages, Appendices--129 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Easements KW - Housing KW - Hurricanes KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615349?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne, Alabama; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA. [Part 5 of 6] T2 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA. AN - 900615339; 15055-7_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of incidental take permits (ITPs) for the endangered Alabama beach mouse (ABM) to two applicants intending to develop condominiums within a 205.6-acre site on the Fort Morgan Peninsula in Baldwin County, Alabama is proposed. The Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands developments have been proposed by Fort Morgan Paradise Joint Venture and Gulf Highlands Condominiums, LLC, respectively. Two ITPs were issued in 2007 to address dune habitat of the ABM, but these ITPs, together with the supporting habitat conservation plan (HCP) and applications, were withdrawn by the permittees in December, 2008 after legal challenges and court rulings. The applicants revised their plans and repositioned the condominium projects 580 to 600 feet further inland to avoid habitats considered essential for the ABMs survival. The permittees own 181.9 acres within the development site and the remaining 23.7 acres are on Baldwin County public road rights-of-way. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the revised preferred alternative (Alternative 3), the Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands condominium complexes would be located on the eastern and western sides of Gulf Way Drive, respectively, and the north side of Avenue B and the tertiary dune system. The preferred development plans, as described in the August 2009 HCP, would include seven multistory condominium towers, two double-deck parking garages, four dune walkovers up to 12 feet wide, amenities, and a commercial development on the northeast property boundary. Except for the dune walkovers (1.6 acres) and a recreational facility (0.1 acre) which would extend into frontal and/or tertiary dunes, the 38.66-acre developed footprint would be located within interior scrub habitat. Under the revised joint HCP, 135.2 acres of the remaining 167 acres of undeveloped lands on the project site would be preserved in perpetuity via conservation easement for the benefit of the ABM. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would protect critical habitat for the endangered mouse species while allowing for residential and recreational development of the site. The permittees would dedicate 135.2 acres of coastal dune habitat into conservation status via covenants, conditions and restrictions attached to the property, and conditions of any ITP that may be issued. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would permanently impact 38.7 acres of scrub habitat and 1.36 acres of seasonally-inundated palustrine emergent wetlands. Increased human presence on the beach could result in disturbance to nesting sea turtles. The development would be constructed in an area under seasonal threat of hurricane landfall. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the original draft and final EISs, see 06-0434D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 07-0146F, Volume 31, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110297, Final EIS--90 pages, Appendices--129 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Easements KW - Housing KW - Hurricanes KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615339?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne, Alabama; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA. [Part 4 of 6] T2 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA. AN - 900615337; 15055-7_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of incidental take permits (ITPs) for the endangered Alabama beach mouse (ABM) to two applicants intending to develop condominiums within a 205.6-acre site on the Fort Morgan Peninsula in Baldwin County, Alabama is proposed. The Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands developments have been proposed by Fort Morgan Paradise Joint Venture and Gulf Highlands Condominiums, LLC, respectively. Two ITPs were issued in 2007 to address dune habitat of the ABM, but these ITPs, together with the supporting habitat conservation plan (HCP) and applications, were withdrawn by the permittees in December, 2008 after legal challenges and court rulings. The applicants revised their plans and repositioned the condominium projects 580 to 600 feet further inland to avoid habitats considered essential for the ABMs survival. The permittees own 181.9 acres within the development site and the remaining 23.7 acres are on Baldwin County public road rights-of-way. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the revised preferred alternative (Alternative 3), the Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands condominium complexes would be located on the eastern and western sides of Gulf Way Drive, respectively, and the north side of Avenue B and the tertiary dune system. The preferred development plans, as described in the August 2009 HCP, would include seven multistory condominium towers, two double-deck parking garages, four dune walkovers up to 12 feet wide, amenities, and a commercial development on the northeast property boundary. Except for the dune walkovers (1.6 acres) and a recreational facility (0.1 acre) which would extend into frontal and/or tertiary dunes, the 38.66-acre developed footprint would be located within interior scrub habitat. Under the revised joint HCP, 135.2 acres of the remaining 167 acres of undeveloped lands on the project site would be preserved in perpetuity via conservation easement for the benefit of the ABM. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would protect critical habitat for the endangered mouse species while allowing for residential and recreational development of the site. The permittees would dedicate 135.2 acres of coastal dune habitat into conservation status via covenants, conditions and restrictions attached to the property, and conditions of any ITP that may be issued. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would permanently impact 38.7 acres of scrub habitat and 1.36 acres of seasonally-inundated palustrine emergent wetlands. Increased human presence on the beach could result in disturbance to nesting sea turtles. The development would be constructed in an area under seasonal threat of hurricane landfall. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the original draft and final EISs, see 06-0434D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 07-0146F, Volume 31, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110297, Final EIS--90 pages, Appendices--129 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Easements KW - Housing KW - Hurricanes KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615337?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne, Alabama; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA. [Part 3 of 6] T2 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA. AN - 900615333; 15055-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of incidental take permits (ITPs) for the endangered Alabama beach mouse (ABM) to two applicants intending to develop condominiums within a 205.6-acre site on the Fort Morgan Peninsula in Baldwin County, Alabama is proposed. The Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands developments have been proposed by Fort Morgan Paradise Joint Venture and Gulf Highlands Condominiums, LLC, respectively. Two ITPs were issued in 2007 to address dune habitat of the ABM, but these ITPs, together with the supporting habitat conservation plan (HCP) and applications, were withdrawn by the permittees in December, 2008 after legal challenges and court rulings. The applicants revised their plans and repositioned the condominium projects 580 to 600 feet further inland to avoid habitats considered essential for the ABMs survival. The permittees own 181.9 acres within the development site and the remaining 23.7 acres are on Baldwin County public road rights-of-way. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the revised preferred alternative (Alternative 3), the Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands condominium complexes would be located on the eastern and western sides of Gulf Way Drive, respectively, and the north side of Avenue B and the tertiary dune system. The preferred development plans, as described in the August 2009 HCP, would include seven multistory condominium towers, two double-deck parking garages, four dune walkovers up to 12 feet wide, amenities, and a commercial development on the northeast property boundary. Except for the dune walkovers (1.6 acres) and a recreational facility (0.1 acre) which would extend into frontal and/or tertiary dunes, the 38.66-acre developed footprint would be located within interior scrub habitat. Under the revised joint HCP, 135.2 acres of the remaining 167 acres of undeveloped lands on the project site would be preserved in perpetuity via conservation easement for the benefit of the ABM. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would protect critical habitat for the endangered mouse species while allowing for residential and recreational development of the site. The permittees would dedicate 135.2 acres of coastal dune habitat into conservation status via covenants, conditions and restrictions attached to the property, and conditions of any ITP that may be issued. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would permanently impact 38.7 acres of scrub habitat and 1.36 acres of seasonally-inundated palustrine emergent wetlands. Increased human presence on the beach could result in disturbance to nesting sea turtles. The development would be constructed in an area under seasonal threat of hurricane landfall. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the original draft and final EISs, see 06-0434D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 07-0146F, Volume 31, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110297, Final EIS--90 pages, Appendices--129 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Easements KW - Housing KW - Hurricanes KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615333?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne, Alabama; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA. [Part 2 of 6] T2 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA. AN - 900615330; 15055-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of incidental take permits (ITPs) for the endangered Alabama beach mouse (ABM) to two applicants intending to develop condominiums within a 205.6-acre site on the Fort Morgan Peninsula in Baldwin County, Alabama is proposed. The Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands developments have been proposed by Fort Morgan Paradise Joint Venture and Gulf Highlands Condominiums, LLC, respectively. Two ITPs were issued in 2007 to address dune habitat of the ABM, but these ITPs, together with the supporting habitat conservation plan (HCP) and applications, were withdrawn by the permittees in December, 2008 after legal challenges and court rulings. The applicants revised their plans and repositioned the condominium projects 580 to 600 feet further inland to avoid habitats considered essential for the ABMs survival. The permittees own 181.9 acres within the development site and the remaining 23.7 acres are on Baldwin County public road rights-of-way. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the revised preferred alternative (Alternative 3), the Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands condominium complexes would be located on the eastern and western sides of Gulf Way Drive, respectively, and the north side of Avenue B and the tertiary dune system. The preferred development plans, as described in the August 2009 HCP, would include seven multistory condominium towers, two double-deck parking garages, four dune walkovers up to 12 feet wide, amenities, and a commercial development on the northeast property boundary. Except for the dune walkovers (1.6 acres) and a recreational facility (0.1 acre) which would extend into frontal and/or tertiary dunes, the 38.66-acre developed footprint would be located within interior scrub habitat. Under the revised joint HCP, 135.2 acres of the remaining 167 acres of undeveloped lands on the project site would be preserved in perpetuity via conservation easement for the benefit of the ABM. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would protect critical habitat for the endangered mouse species while allowing for residential and recreational development of the site. The permittees would dedicate 135.2 acres of coastal dune habitat into conservation status via covenants, conditions and restrictions attached to the property, and conditions of any ITP that may be issued. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would permanently impact 38.7 acres of scrub habitat and 1.36 acres of seasonally-inundated palustrine emergent wetlands. Increased human presence on the beach could result in disturbance to nesting sea turtles. The development would be constructed in an area under seasonal threat of hurricane landfall. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the original draft and final EISs, see 06-0434D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 07-0146F, Volume 31, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110297, Final EIS--90 pages, Appendices--129 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Easements KW - Housing KW - Hurricanes KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615330?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne, Alabama; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA. [Part 1 of 6] T2 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA. AN - 900615329; 15055-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of incidental take permits (ITPs) for the endangered Alabama beach mouse (ABM) to two applicants intending to develop condominiums within a 205.6-acre site on the Fort Morgan Peninsula in Baldwin County, Alabama is proposed. The Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands developments have been proposed by Fort Morgan Paradise Joint Venture and Gulf Highlands Condominiums, LLC, respectively. Two ITPs were issued in 2007 to address dune habitat of the ABM, but these ITPs, together with the supporting habitat conservation plan (HCP) and applications, were withdrawn by the permittees in December, 2008 after legal challenges and court rulings. The applicants revised their plans and repositioned the condominium projects 580 to 600 feet further inland to avoid habitats considered essential for the ABMs survival. The permittees own 181.9 acres within the development site and the remaining 23.7 acres are on Baldwin County public road rights-of-way. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the revised preferred alternative (Alternative 3), the Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands condominium complexes would be located on the eastern and western sides of Gulf Way Drive, respectively, and the north side of Avenue B and the tertiary dune system. The preferred development plans, as described in the August 2009 HCP, would include seven multistory condominium towers, two double-deck parking garages, four dune walkovers up to 12 feet wide, amenities, and a commercial development on the northeast property boundary. Except for the dune walkovers (1.6 acres) and a recreational facility (0.1 acre) which would extend into frontal and/or tertiary dunes, the 38.66-acre developed footprint would be located within interior scrub habitat. Under the revised joint HCP, 135.2 acres of the remaining 167 acres of undeveloped lands on the project site would be preserved in perpetuity via conservation easement for the benefit of the ABM. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would protect critical habitat for the endangered mouse species while allowing for residential and recreational development of the site. The permittees would dedicate 135.2 acres of coastal dune habitat into conservation status via covenants, conditions and restrictions attached to the property, and conditions of any ITP that may be issued. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would permanently impact 38.7 acres of scrub habitat and 1.36 acres of seasonally-inundated palustrine emergent wetlands. Increased human presence on the beach could result in disturbance to nesting sea turtles. The development would be constructed in an area under seasonal threat of hurricane landfall. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the original draft and final EISs, see 06-0434D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 07-0146F, Volume 31, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110297, Final EIS--90 pages, Appendices--129 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Easements KW - Housing KW - Hurricanes KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615329?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne, Alabama; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-12 TO BUSH, LOUISIANA PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 899127855; 15052 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of between 17.4 and 21 miles of high-speed, four-lane arterial highway from the southern terminus of the current, four-lane arterial portion of Louisiana Highway (LA) 21 in Bush, Louisiana, to Interstate 12 (I-12) is proposed. The project area for LA 3241 is entirely within St. Tammany Parish and roughly bounded by LA 21, US 190, I-12, US 11, and LA 41. It encompasses approximately 245 square miles in area and includes the incorporated areas of Abita Springs, Pearl River, and portions of the cities of Slidell and Covington. Unincorporated areas such as Bush, Hickory, Talisheek, and Waldheim are included in the project area. LA 21 is a four-lane divided highway between the city of Bogalusa, in Washington Parish, and Bush, in St. Tammany Parish ending at its intersection with LA 41. The proposed I-12 to Bush highway would extend the four-lane section from that point to an existing interchange on I-12 by expanding an existing highway to four lanes or constructing a new alignment with a maximum right-of-way (ROW) width of 250 feet. The majority of the proposed highway would be designed as a rural arterial road with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The typical cross section would have two 12-foot travel lanes, an eight- to 10-foot outside shoulder, and a four-foot inside shoulder in each direction. The median width would vary depending on highway design class used ranging between 40 and 60 feet. The exception to that design could be as the proposed project transitions into existing roadways and where alternative alignments follow the existing LA 21. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development's preferred alignment, Alternative P, would begin at the intersection of LA 41 and LA 40 in Bush and proceed southward for 17.4 miles to LA 1088. The majority of the project would have a typical ROW width requirement of 250 feet. The northern 0.7 mile of the project would also have a ROW width of 250 feet. The exception to that design would be at the southern end of the project area where the last 1.5 miles would be designed as a suburban arterial with a ROW width of approximately 180 feet. The proposed route would use an abandoned railroad corridor from Bush to Talisheek, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles, before turning southwesterly for 13.3 miles on a new alignment to connect with LA 1088 north of I-12. Access for this route would be provided in Bush, at LA 435, at LA 36, and at the intersection with LA 1088. Crossings of existing highways would be at grade. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed highway would provide a four-lane highway connection for Washington and northern St. Tammany Parishes to I-12, with the goal of fulfilling regional transportation needs and stimulating economic growth and activity in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would replace existing land cover with impervious road surfaces and could result in the loss or degradation of fish and wildlife habitat. Under the preferred alternative, 20 acres of pine flatwoods habitat and 358 acres of wetlands within the ROW would be permanently lost; an additional 208 acres of wetlands outside the ROW could be impacted. Channel and overland flow could be impeded resulting in a change in the vegetative complex and increased duration of ponding and drought conditions. The amount of wetlands throughout the study area could be reduced. A noticeable increase in traffic noise would be expected for all receptors within one mile of the proposed control of access highways. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110294, Draft EIS-316 pages, Appendices--1,049 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Hydrology KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/899127855?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=I-12+TO+BUSH%2C+LOUISIANA+PROPOSED+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+ST.+TAMMANY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DICKSON SOUTHWEST BYPASS FROM SR-1 (US 70) WEST OF DICKSON, TO SR-46 AND/OR I-40 SOUTH OF DICKSON, DICKSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 899127832; 15050 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a bypass on new location around the city of Dickson, Tennessee is proposed. The bypass would begin on the west side of Dickson on US 70 and terminate on Interstate 40 (I-40), State Route 46 (SR-46), or both I-40 and SR-46 south of Dickson. Currently, US-70 to SR-46 is the only primary route connecting the western and southern areas of Dickson and travel speeds through the urban center are low. The SR-46/I-40 interchange, which is the primary access point to Dickson from I-40, is expected to reach operational failure in 2023. The next closest interchange linking Dickson to I-40 is approximately 10 miles away. Therefore, an additional access point between Dickson and I-40 is currently under consideration for the project. Five build alternatives, transportation system management improvements to existing SR-46, and a No Build alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The bypass alternatives vary from 6.4 to 11.0 miles in length and all begin on SR-1 (US 70) between South Eno Road and Pond Switch Road. Alternative 1 has a terminus point at the southern end of the project on I-40. Alternatives 2A and 2C terminate on SR-46. Alternative 1 is proposed as a two-lane roadway with future expansion to four lanes with a depressed median. Alternatives 2A and 2C are proposed to have the same typical section as Alternative 1 from SR-1 (US 70) to SR-48. Then from SR-48 to SR-46, a five-lane section is proposed. Two possible combination alternatives, Alternative 1&2A and Alternative 1&2C, would involve construction of a facility with project termini on both SR-46 and I-40 and would increase accessibility to Dicksons airport. Total project costs are estimated at $50.5 to $60.6 million for the non-combination alternatives and $87.7 to $89.8 million for the combination alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The bypass would provide a transportation facility that improves mobility around the city of Dickson, relieves traffic congestion in Dicksons urban core, improves accessibility to undeveloped land west and south of the city, and supports economic development. Construction would be expected to generate 1,000 full- or part-time jobs and $110 to $132 million into the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a bypass alternative would result in impacts to 120 to 165 acres of forested and old field habitats and up to 33 streams. The acquisition of some vacant property and as many as five rural residences would be required. The trend of conversion of farmland to other uses would likely be accelerated, especially near SR-46 and I-40. The bypass alternatives could directly impact two privately owned recreational resources: the Dickson Saddle and Bridle Club and Robins Park. The Dickson County Saddle and Bridle Club would be acquired for right-of-way if Alternative 2A is selected. Some local businesses would see a decrease in opportunity sales due to removal of traffic on SR-46. However, those losses would likely be recovered by an overall stimulation of the local economy. 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: 110292, 321 pages and maps, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Tennessee KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance 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/899127832?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DICKSON+SOUTHWEST+BYPASS+FROM+SR-1+%28US+70%29+WEST+OF+DICKSON%2C+TO+SR-46+AND%2FOR+I-40+SOUTH+OF+DICKSON%2C+DICKSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=DICKSON+SOUTHWEST+BYPASS+FROM+SR-1+%28US+70%29+WEST+OF+DICKSON%2C+TO+SR-46+AND%2FOR+I-40+SOUTH+OF+DICKSON%2C+DICKSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHASE 3 OF THE RECLAMATION DISTRICT 17 100-YEAR LEVEE SEEPAGE AREA PROJECT, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 899127769; 15059 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of Phase 3 of the Reclamation District 17 (RD 17) 100-Year Levee Seepage Area Project (LSAP) in San Joaquin County, California is proposed. The LSAP is a three-phase program of landside improvements to bring RD 17s 19-mile levee system into compliance with applicable standards for levees protecting urban areas. The Phase 1 and Phase 2 were completed in 2009 and summer 2010, respectively. Failure of the RD 17 levee system and subsequent flooding would pose a significant threat to public health and safety and cause substantial economic losses. The RD 17 levee system protects approximately 10,698 residential units, and 182 nonresidential properties with a total floor area of 11.9 million square feet. The overall purpose of the Phase 3 Project is to implement landside levee improvements in 23 LSAP elements affecting 8.4 miles of the system, including portions of the San Joaquin River east levee, portions of the levee along the north bank of Walthall Slough, and along the dryland levee extending east from Walthall Slough to approximately South Airport Way. Levee improvements under consideration for the Phase 3 Project include levee slope and crown width modifications to meet levee geometry requirements, construction of seepage berms and setback levees with seepage berms, and installation of slurry cutoff walls and chimney drains to reduce underseepage and through-seepage gradients. The proposed improvements would occur along various sections of the RD 17 levee system starting near the southern boundary of the city of Stockton, through the city of Lathrop, and to the western boundary of the city of Manteca. This draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives representing minimum disturbance (Alternative 1) and maximum disturbance (Alternative 2) scenarios. Two options for addressing levee vegetation under Army Corps of Engineers policy are evaluated separately for both action alternatives: 1) removal of all vegetation, other than perennial grasses, from the levee slopes and out 15 feet from the waterside and landside levee toes; or 2) acquisition of a variance to retain all vegetation on the lower two thirds of the waterside levee slope and out 15 feet from the waterside levee toe. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Proposed improvements would correct levee geometry where needed to meet design standards, increase the levees resistance to underseepage and/or through-seepage, and reduce the risk of flooding during a 100-year flood event. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would result in short-term degradation of visual character in the project area and generate noise and excessive vibration. Important farmland would be converted to nonagricultural use and potential loss or disturbance of habitat could impact riparian brush rabbit. Potential damage or disturbance to identified and undiscovered cultural resources could result in a disproportionately high and adverse effect on the Native American community. 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. 408 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 1100301, 666 pages and maps, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Hazards KW - Flood Protection KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 408 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/899127769?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHASE+3+OF+THE+RECLAMATION+DISTRICT+17+100-YEAR+LEVEE+SEEPAGE+AREA+PROJECT%2C+SAN+JOAQUIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PHASE+3+OF+THE+RECLAMATION+DISTRICT+17+100-YEAR+LEVEE+SEEPAGE+AREA+PROJECT%2C+SAN+JOAQUIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA. AN - 899127722; 15055 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of incidental take permits (ITPs) for the endangered Alabama beach mouse (ABM) to two applicants intending to develop condominiums within a 205.6-acre site on the Fort Morgan Peninsula in Baldwin County, Alabama is proposed. The Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands developments have been proposed by Fort Morgan Paradise Joint Venture and Gulf Highlands Condominiums, LLC, respectively. Two ITPs were issued in 2007 to address dune habitat of the ABM, but these ITPs, together with the supporting habitat conservation plan (HCP) and applications, were withdrawn by the permittees in December, 2008 after legal challenges and court rulings. The applicants revised their plans and repositioned the condominium projects 580 to 600 feet further inland to avoid habitats considered essential for the ABMs survival. The permittees own 181.9 acres within the development site and the remaining 23.7 acres are on Baldwin County public road rights-of-way. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the revised preferred alternative (Alternative 3), the Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands condominium complexes would be located on the eastern and western sides of Gulf Way Drive, respectively, and the north side of Avenue B and the tertiary dune system. The preferred development plans, as described in the August 2009 HCP, would include seven multistory condominium towers, two double-deck parking garages, four dune walkovers up to 12 feet wide, amenities, and a commercial development on the northeast property boundary. Except for the dune walkovers (1.6 acres) and a recreational facility (0.1 acre) which would extend into frontal and/or tertiary dunes, the 38.66-acre developed footprint would be located within interior scrub habitat. Under the revised joint HCP, 135.2 acres of the remaining 167 acres of undeveloped lands on the project site would be preserved in perpetuity via conservation easement for the benefit of the ABM. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would protect critical habitat for the endangered mouse species while allowing for residential and recreational development of the site. The permittees would dedicate 135.2 acres of coastal dune habitat into conservation status via covenants, conditions and restrictions attached to the property, and conditions of any ITP that may be issued. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would permanently impact 38.7 acres of scrub habitat and 1.36 acres of seasonally-inundated palustrine emergent wetlands. Increased human presence on the beach could result in disturbance to nesting sea turtles. The development would be constructed in an area under seasonal threat of hurricane landfall. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the original draft and final EISs, see 06-0434D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 07-0146F, Volume 31, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110297, Final EIS--90 pages, Appendices--129 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Easements KW - Housing KW - Hurricanes KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/899127722?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne, Alabama; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Pallid Sturgeon Population Assessment and Monitoring on the Missouri River T2 - 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society (AFS 2011) AN - 1313069502; 6075473 JF - 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society (AFS 2011) AU - Welker, Tim AU - Williams, George AU - Kruse, Casey Y1 - 2011/09/04/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Sep 04 KW - USA, Missouri R. KW - Rivers KW - Environmental monitoring KW - Acipenser UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1313069502?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2011+Annual+Meeting+of+the+American+Fisheries+Society+%28AFS+2011%29&rft.atitle=Pallid+Sturgeon+Population+Assessment+and+Monitoring+on+the+Missouri+River&rft.au=Welker%2C+Tim%3BWilliams%2C+George%3BKruse%2C+Casey&rft.aulast=Welker&rft.aufirst=Tim&rft.date=2011-09-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2011+Annual+Meeting+of+the+American+Fisheries+Society+%28AFS+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://afs.confex.com/afs/2011/webprogram/meeting.html#2011-09-05 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Avian Predation on Juvenile Salmonids at John Day and the Dalles Dams on the Columbia River in 2010 T2 - 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society (AFS 2011) AN - 1313041880; 6072621 JF - 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society (AFS 2011) AU - Zorich, Nathan AU - Jonas, Michael AU - Madson, Patricia Y1 - 2011/09/04/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Sep 04 KW - USA, Columbia R. KW - Predation KW - Dams KW - Rivers KW - Anadromous species KW - Salmonidae UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1313041880?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2011+Annual+Meeting+of+the+American+Fisheries+Society+%28AFS+2011%29&rft.atitle=Avian+Predation+on+Juvenile+Salmonids+at+John+Day+and+the+Dalles+Dams+on+the+Columbia+River+in+2010&rft.au=Zorich%2C+Nathan%3BJonas%2C+Michael%3BMadson%2C+Patricia&rft.aulast=Zorich&rft.aufirst=Nathan&rft.date=2011-09-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2011+Annual+Meeting+of+the+American+Fisheries+Society+%28AFS+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://afs.confex.com/afs/2011/webprogram/meeting.html#2011-09-05 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Environmental Flow for Recruitment: Adaptive Management for the Endangered Rio Grande Silvery Minnow T2 - 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society (AFS 2011) AN - 1313041236; 6076109 JF - 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society (AFS 2011) AU - Porter, Michael Y1 - 2011/09/04/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Sep 04 KW - Recruitment KW - adaptive management KW - Freshwater fish KW - Rare species UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1313041236?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2011+Annual+Meeting+of+the+American+Fisheries+Society+%28AFS+2011%29&rft.atitle=Environmental+Flow+for+Recruitment%3A+Adaptive+Management+for+the+Endangered+Rio+Grande+Silvery+Minnow&rft.au=Porter%2C+Michael&rft.aulast=Porter&rft.aufirst=Michael&rft.date=2011-09-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2011+Annual+Meeting+of+the+American+Fisheries+Society+%28AFS+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://afs.confex.com/afs/2011/webprogram/meeting.html#2011-09-05 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - The Biological Importance of Middle Mississippi River Islands on Fish Assemblages, Missouri, USA T2 - 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society (AFS 2011) AN - 1313031722; 6073948 JF - 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society (AFS 2011) AU - Allen, Teri AU - Keevin, Thomas AU - Hrabik, Robert Y1 - 2011/09/04/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Sep 04 KW - USA, Missouri KW - North America, Mississippi R. KW - Fish KW - Islands KW - Rivers UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1313031722?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2011+Annual+Meeting+of+the+American+Fisheries+Society+%28AFS+2011%29&rft.atitle=The+Biological+Importance+of+Middle+Mississippi+River+Islands+on+Fish+Assemblages%2C+Missouri%2C+USA&rft.au=Allen%2C+Teri%3BKeevin%2C+Thomas%3BHrabik%2C+Robert&rft.aulast=Allen&rft.aufirst=Teri&rft.date=2011-09-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2011+Annual+Meeting+of+the+American+Fisheries+Society+%28AFS+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://afs.confex.com/afs/2011/webprogram/meeting.html#2011-09-05 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Using Two-Dimensional Acoustic Telemetry to Track Fish Response to Habitat Features for Evaluating Project Design Alternatives and Supporting Long-Term Planning for the Sacramento River System T2 - 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society (AFS 2011) AN - 1313005783; 6075699 JF - 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society (AFS 2011) AU - Mulvey, Brian AU - Smith, David AU - Abbott, Robert AU - Webber, Dale Y1 - 2011/09/04/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Sep 04 KW - USA, California, Sacramento R. KW - Fish KW - Habitat KW - acoustic telemetry KW - Acoustic telemetry KW - Rivers KW - Telemetry KW - Long-term planning UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1313005783?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2011+Annual+Meeting+of+the+American+Fisheries+Society+%28AFS+2011%29&rft.atitle=Using+Two-Dimensional+Acoustic+Telemetry+to+Track+Fish+Response+to+Habitat+Features+for+Evaluating+Project+Design+Alternatives+and+Supporting+Long-Term+Planning+for+the+Sacramento+River+System&rft.au=Mulvey%2C+Brian%3BSmith%2C+David%3BAbbott%2C+Robert%3BWebber%2C+Dale&rft.aulast=Mulvey&rft.aufirst=Brian&rft.date=2011-09-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2011+Annual+Meeting+of+the+American+Fisheries+Society+%28AFS+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://afs.confex.com/afs/2011/webprogram/meeting.html#2011-09-05 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Integrating Fish Movement Data and Hydraulics for Habitat Analysis T2 - 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society (AFS 2011) AN - 1313005745; 6075698 JF - 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society (AFS 2011) AU - Smith, David AU - Threadgill, Tammy AU - Goodwin, R AU - Mulvey, Brian Y1 - 2011/09/04/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Sep 04 KW - Fish KW - Habitat KW - Hydraulics KW - Data processing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1313005745?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2011+Annual+Meeting+of+the+American+Fisheries+Society+%28AFS+2011%29&rft.atitle=Integrating+Fish+Movement+Data+and+Hydraulics+for+Habitat+Analysis&rft.au=Smith%2C+David%3BThreadgill%2C+Tammy%3BGoodwin%2C+R%3BMulvey%2C+Brian&rft.aulast=Smith&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=2011-09-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2011+Annual+Meeting+of+the+American+Fisheries+Society+%28AFS+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://afs.confex.com/afs/2011/webprogram/meeting.html#2011-09-05 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Science-Based Adaptive Management of the Columbia Estuary Ecosystem Restoration Program T2 - 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society (AFS 2011) AN - 1312988799; 6072802 JF - 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society (AFS 2011) AU - Ebberts, Blaine AU - Yerxa, Tracey AU - Studebaker, Cynthia AU - Corbett, Catherine Y1 - 2011/09/04/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Sep 04 KW - USA, Columbia Estuary KW - adaptive management KW - Estuaries KW - Restoration UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312988799?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2011+Annual+Meeting+of+the+American+Fisheries+Society+%28AFS+2011%29&rft.atitle=Science-Based+Adaptive+Management+of+the+Columbia+Estuary+Ecosystem+Restoration+Program&rft.au=Ebberts%2C+Blaine%3BYerxa%2C+Tracey%3BStudebaker%2C+Cynthia%3BCorbett%2C+Catherine&rft.aulast=Ebberts&rft.aufirst=Blaine&rft.date=2011-09-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2011+Annual+Meeting+of+the+American+Fisheries+Society+%28AFS+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://afs.confex.com/afs/2011/webprogram/meeting.html#2011-09-05 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Rock Arch Rapids, Lock and Dam #1, Cape Fear River, NC T2 - 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society (AFS 2011) AN - 1312977810; 6074565 JF - 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society (AFS 2011) AU - Yelverton, Frank Y1 - 2011/09/04/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Sep 04 KW - USA, South Carolina, Cape Fear KW - Rivers UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312977810?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2011+Annual+Meeting+of+the+American+Fisheries+Society+%28AFS+2011%29&rft.atitle=Rock+Arch+Rapids%2C+Lock+and+Dam+%231%2C+Cape+Fear+River%2C+NC&rft.au=Yelverton%2C+Frank&rft.aulast=Yelverton&rft.aufirst=Frank&rft.date=2011-09-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2011+Annual+Meeting+of+the+American+Fisheries+Society+%28AFS+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://afs.confex.com/afs/2011/webprogram/meeting.html#2011-09-05 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Tilapia and Aquaculture: a Review of Management Concerns T2 - 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society (AFS 2011) AN - 1312958891; 6076184 JF - 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society (AFS 2011) AU - Slack, William AU - Peterson, Mark Y1 - 2011/09/04/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Sep 04 KW - Reviews KW - Fish culture KW - Tilapia UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312958891?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2011+Annual+Meeting+of+the+American+Fisheries+Society+%28AFS+2011%29&rft.atitle=Tilapia+and+Aquaculture%3A+a+Review+of+Management+Concerns&rft.au=Slack%2C+William%3BPeterson%2C+Mark&rft.aulast=Slack&rft.aufirst=William&rft.date=2011-09-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2011+Annual+Meeting+of+the+American+Fisheries+Society+%28AFS+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://afs.confex.com/afs/2011/webprogram/meeting.html#2011-09-05 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Ecosystem-Based Restoration of Fish Habitat in the Lower Mississippi River and Gulf Coastal Region T2 - 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society (AFS 2011) AN - 1312934315; 6072882 JF - 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society (AFS 2011) AU - Killgore, Jack AU - Nassar, Ron AU - Schultz, David AU - Hoover, Jan Y1 - 2011/09/04/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Sep 04 KW - North America, Mississippi R. KW - Fish KW - Habitat improvement KW - Coastal zone KW - Rivers UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312934315?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2011+Annual+Meeting+of+the+American+Fisheries+Society+%28AFS+2011%29&rft.atitle=Ecosystem-Based+Restoration+of+Fish+Habitat+in+the+Lower+Mississippi+River+and+Gulf+Coastal+Region&rft.au=Killgore%2C+Jack%3BNassar%2C+Ron%3BSchultz%2C+David%3BHoover%2C+Jan&rft.aulast=Killgore&rft.aufirst=Jack&rft.date=2011-09-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2011+Annual+Meeting+of+the+American+Fisheries+Society+%28AFS+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://afs.confex.com/afs/2011/webprogram/meeting.html#2011-09-05 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 203 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897344150; 15048-0_0203 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 203 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897344150?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 200 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897344123; 15048-0_0200 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 200 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897344123?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 199 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897344103; 15048-0_0199 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 199 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897344103?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 193 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897344085; 15048-0_0193 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 193 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897344085?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 179 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897344005; 15048-0_0179 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 179 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897344005?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 89 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343806; 15048-0_0089 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 89 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343806?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 195 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343787; 15048-0_0195 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 195 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343787?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 167 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343708; 15048-0_0167 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 167 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343708?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 73 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343568; 15048-0_0073 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 73 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343568?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 63 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343563; 15048-0_0063 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 63 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343563?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 75 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343327; 15048-0_0075 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 75 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343327?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 86 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343203; 15048-0_0086 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 86 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343203?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 171 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897342440; 15048-0_0171 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 171 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897342440?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 169 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897342372; 15048-0_0169 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 169 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897342372?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 164 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897342166; 15048-0_0164 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 164 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897342166?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 149 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341879; 15048-0_0149 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 149 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341879?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 34 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341708; 15048-0_0034 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341708?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 51 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341608; 15048-0_0051 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 51 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341608?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 221 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341564; 15048-0_0221 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 221 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341564?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 220 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341521; 15048-0_0220 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 220 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341521?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 140 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341427; 15048-0_0140 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 140 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341427?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 235 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341342; 15048-0_0235 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 235 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341342?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 159 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341331; 15048-0_0159 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 159 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341331?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 131 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341235; 15048-0_0131 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 131 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341235?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 145 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341219; 15048-0_0145 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 145 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341219?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 214 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341194; 15048-0_0214 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 214 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341194?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 41 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341159; 15048-0_0041 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 41 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341159?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 144 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341115; 15048-0_0144 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 144 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341115?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 151 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341089; 15048-0_0151 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 151 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341089?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 143 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341073; 15048-0_0143 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 143 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341073?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 113 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341064; 15048-0_0113 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 113 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341064?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 49 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341041; 15048-0_0049 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 49 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341041?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 60 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341023; 15048-0_0060 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 60 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341023?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 43 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340994; 15048-0_0043 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 43 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340994?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 28 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340992; 15048-0_0028 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340992?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 53 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340973; 15048-0_0053 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 53 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340973?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 47 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340953; 15048-0_0047 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 47 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340953?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 24 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340950; 15048-0_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340950?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 94 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340900; 15048-0_0094 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 94 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340900?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 32 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340877; 15048-0_0032 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340877?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 31 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340837; 15048-0_0031 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340837?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 22 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340731; 15048-0_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340731?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 234 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340633; 15048-0_0234 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 234 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340633?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 114 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340628; 15048-0_0114 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 114 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340628?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 233 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340603; 15048-0_0233 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 233 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340603?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=Judith&rft.date=2012-01-01&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=881&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Schizophrenia+bulletin&rft.issn=05867614&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 121 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340549; 15048-0_0121 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 121 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340549?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 249 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340438; 15048-0_0249 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 249 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340438?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 242 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340416; 15048-0_0242 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 242 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340416?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 239 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340259; 15048-0_0239 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 239 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340259?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 11 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340195; 15048-0_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340195?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 213 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897339829; 15048-0_0213 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 213 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339829?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 212 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897339826; 15048-0_0212 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 212 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339826?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 95 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897339811; 15048-0_0095 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for WCSB crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 95 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339811?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER -